*    SEP  21  1904  * 


Division  B  X  ^  "3  ?  3 
Section  « 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2014 

https://archive.org/details/constitutionalhi00tige_1 


A 


CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY 


American  Episcopal  Methodism. 
/ 

By  JNO.  J.  TIGERT,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


Bassanio  I  beseech  you, 

Wrest  once  the  law  to  your  authority: 
To  do  a  great  right,  do  a  little  wrong." 

Portia  :  "  'Twill  be  recorded  for  a  precedent, 
And  many  an  error,  by  the  same  example. 
Will  rush  into  the  state.    It  cannot  be." 

— Shakespeare,  Afercliant  of  Venice. 


SECOND  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED. 


Nashville,  Tenn.;  Dallas,  Tex.: 
Publishing  House  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
Smith  &  Lamar,  Agents. 
1904. 


Copyright, 
1904. 

By  Smith  &  Lamar. 


REVERENTLY  INSCRIBED 

TO  THE  MEMORY  OF  MY 

flbotbec, 

flDan?  IDan  IDeghten  ^igert, 

A  Life-long  Methodist  of  the  Olden  Type, 
THE  Melody  of  Whose  Voice 
lifted  in 

Rapturous  Experience,  Sacred  Song,  or  Prevailing  Prayer, 
In  Love-feast,  Class-meeting,  and  Revival  Service, 
Yet  Lingers,  a  Hallowing  Influence, 

IN  THE  heart  of 

Her  First-born  Son. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  REVISED  EDITION. 


The  additions  to  this  edition  comprise  Chapter  XXIV.,  "The 
Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  1S40,"  and  Chapter  XXV., 
"The  General  Conference  of  1844:  the  Louisville  Convention 
and  the  Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South"  ; 
together  with  a  series  of  Appendices,  whose  titles  explain  their 
nature.  I  have  also  rewritten  a  large  portion  of  ChajDter  IX.,  on 
"The  Doctrinal  Standards  of  Ecumenical  Methodism,"  stating 
fully  the  evidence  for  an  alternative  view.  The  text  throughout 
has  been  corrected  and  modified  in  many  ways.  Notice  has  been 
taken  of  relevant  literature  published  since  the  issue  of  the  first  edi- 
tion, and  the  footnotes  have  been  often  enlarged  by  the  addition  of 
older  or  better  evidence.  In  some  instances  I  have  allowed  matter 
to  stand  which  does  not  with  entire  accuracy  represent  my  present 
view  ;  in  the  belief  that,  when  taken  in  connection  with  modifica- 
tions and  additions  elsewhere  introduced,  the  author  would  not  be 
seriously  misrepresented  nor  the  reader  seriously  misled.  The  re- 
sult may  be  seen  in  detail  by  a  comparison  of  the  present  with  the 
former  edition. 

The  main  sources  of  additional  light  may  be  briefly  summarized. 

1.  I  have  used  a  complete  collection  of  the  early  Disciplines  of 
the  Church,  a  critical  account  of  which  is  given  in  Ajipendix  I. 

2.  For  the  early  American  Conferences  I  formerly  had  only  the 
Minutes  published  in  181 3.  For  this  edition  I  have  used,  not  only 
the  first  collected  edition  of  1795,  but,  by  the  kindness  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  C.  J.  Little,  the  original  contemporaneous  Minutes,  published 
in  pamphlet  form,  of  1785,  1786,  1787,  1789,  1790,1792,  1793,  1794, 
1795,  and  later  years. 

3.  I  am  indebted  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  D.  J.  Waller  for  the  opportunity 
to  use  the  most  recently  and  most  intelligently  edited  collection  of 

(5) 


6 


Preface  to  the  Revised  Edition. 


the  British  Minutes,  basing  on  better  foundations,  as  will  be  read- 
ily seen,  my  account  of  British  Methodism. 

4.  I  have,  with  the  help  of  Mr.  R.  T.  Miller,  used  a  unique  col- 
lection of  Sunday  Services:  the  first  edition,  1784;  the  second 
edition,  1786  (both  American) ;  the  third  edition,  1788  (British) ;  and 
the  fourth  edition,  1 792  (both  the  American  and  the  British  editions). 

5.  As  Secretary  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  I  have  in  my  official  custody  the  orig- 
inal manuscript  Journal  of  the  Louisville  Convention  of  1845;  of 
this  document,  together  with  a  few  more  unpublished  letters  of 
the  Bishops  of  that  period,  use  has  been  made  in  Chapter  XXV. 

By  reference  to  the  former  Preface,  written  just  ten  years  ago, 
it  will  be  found  that  I  was  anticipating  a  fifth  volume  of  the  "His- 
tory of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  by  Dr.  Abel  Stevens. 
In  this  I  was  misled  by  various  announcements  ;  the  volume  prov- 
ing to  be  a  "  Supplementary  History  of  American  Methodism." 

It  is  not  likely  that  I  shall  make  further  additions  to  this  His- 
tory. Sometimes  the  conviction  is  borne  in  upon  me  that  it  would 
be  desirable  to  add,  in  another  volume,  Book  VII.,  "The  Constitu- 
tional History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  to  the  death  of 
Bishop  Simpson  ;  and  Book  VIII.,  "The  Constitutional  History  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,"  to  the  death  of  Bishop 
McTyeire,  the  author,  in  1866,  of  lay  delegation;  but  my  own  in- 
terest has  of  late  years  been  drawn  away  to  other  fields  of  study.  A 
parallel,  but  more  detailed,  treatment  of  many  points  may  be  found 
in  my  volume  entitled  "The  Making  of  Methodism  :  Studies  in  the 
Genesis  of  Institutions."  It  may  be  added  that,  in  extending  this  vol- 
ume, I  have  continued  to  keep  in  view  the  need  of  completing,  at  least 
in  his  public  character,  the  biography  of  Bishop  Soule,  the  last  sen- 
ior Bishop  of  the  undivided  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the 
first  senior  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

For  the  preparation  of  the  full  Index,  I  am  indebted  to  my  com- 
petent and  ever  faithful  assistant,  Mr.  John  L.  Kirby. 

JnO.   J.  TiGEUT. 

Nashville,  25  yovembcr,  1903. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


This  history  has  been  written  from  the  sources,  with  due  regard 
to  recognized  authorities.  By  sources  are  meant  the  journals  and 
correspondence  of  the  Wesleys,  Coke,  Asbury,  Whatcoat,  Mc- 
Kendree,  and  others;  the  memoirs  of  Ware,  Watters,  Gatch,  and 
Garrettson;  the  official  records  of  the  Conferences  in  England 
and  America;  the  literature  of  the  governmental  questions  that 
have  agitated  the  Church;  and,  in  general,  whatever  contempo- 
rary data  are  now  extant  and  accessible.  By  authorities  are 
meant  the  histories  of  Smith,  Bangs,  Stevens,  McTyeire,  Atkin- 
son, Neely,  and  some  others;  the  biographies  by  Tyerman,  White- 
head, Moore,  Southey,  Watson,  Jackson,  Drew,  Bangs,  Phoebus, 
Lee,  Paine,  Elliott,  Clark,  Emory,  Hibbard,  and  others;  and 
whatever  later  publications  illustrate  the  inquiries  here  prosecuted. 
Jesse  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists  is,  for  the  most  part,  to  be 
accepted  as  a  source.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  attempt  here 
a  complete  enumeration  of  the  materials  whence  the  narrative  and 
its  conclusions  have  been  drawn:  ample  acknowledgment  is  made 
in  the  footnotes,  and  it  is  believed  that  no  essential  aid  has  been 
neglected. 

Of  a  valuable  collection  of  papers,  of  which  considerable  use  has 
been  made,  some  account  should  be  given.  Bishop  Asbury's  pa- 
pers were  left  to  Bishop  McKendree;  Bishop  McKendree's  to 
Bishop  Soule,  who,  it  was  expected,  would  be  his  biographer. 
When  Bishop  Paine  undertook  this  task,  Bishop  Soule  placed  both 
Mr.  Asbury's  (so  far  as  not  previously  disposed  of)  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Kendree's papers  in  his  hands.  Later,  Bishop  Soule's  own  papers, 
and  the  collection  in  Bishop  Paine's  possession,  of  which  he  made 
large  but  by  no  means  exhaustive  use  in  his  Life  of  McKendree, 
came  into  the  hands  of  Bishop  McTyeire.    Since  his  death,  they 

(7) 


8 


Preface  to  the  First  Edition. 


have  been,  by  his  direction,  in  my  custody.  Some  of  these  papers 
ought  not  to  be  published,  and  will  be  submitted  to  judicious  per- 
sons who  have  the  best  right  to  a  judgment  and  voice  in  their  final 
disposition;  many  are  reserved  for  future  uses;  a  considerable 
number— such  as  the  notes  of  the  first  Bishops'  meeting  ever  held 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  Philadelphia,  in  1826,  and 
the  official  correspondence  of  the  Bishops  at  that  time— are  here 
published  for  the  first  time. 

In  this  book,  I  do  not  pretend  to  have  responded  to  a  « Xon^felt 
want."  Nor  has  anybody  urged  me  to  write.  The  truth  is  that 
all  of  us,  preachers  as  well  as  people,  grow  more  or  less  indifferent 
to  such  inquiries,  until  some  crisis  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  per- 
haps unexpected  and  perilous,  reveals  to  us  our  careless,  if  not  sin- 
ful, neglect.  But  there  is  real  need  for  a  work  like  this.  Hence, 
under  a  sense  of  duty,  and  in  default  of  a  more  competent  hand 
(or,  indeed,  of  any  hand  turned  to  this  task)  I  have  undertaken  to 
fill  a  hitherto  unoccupied  place  in  the  literature  of  American 
Methodism,  whose  importance  cannot  be  exaggerated.  I  wish  I 
could  have  done  the  work  better.  I  have  not  reached  my  ideal. 
The  time  for  investigation  and  composition  has  been  snatched  from 
the  many  and  exacting  duties  of  a  busy  pastorate  in  a  large  city; 
but,  though  I  have  coveted  abundant  leisure,  to  perfect  the  literary 
form,  and  to  make  it  more  worthy  of  the  theme,  I  think,  after  re- 
peated review,  that  for  "  substance  of  doctrine,"  the  book  is  about 
as  good  as  I  could  make  it.  Otherwise,  in  this  age  of  many  books, 
I  should  have  no  right  to  publish  it. 

Whenever  it  was  possible,  my  method  of  composition  has  been  to 
combine  the  sources,  especially  on  the  many  disputed  points,  into  a 
consistent  narrative,  whose  simplicity  and  directness  should  be  the 
warrant  of  its  truth.  Sometimes  I  have  been  able  to  show,  by 
brief  extracts  from  many  independent  sources,  that  but  one  view 
could  possibly  represent  the  truth.  For  a  time  my  mind  inclined 
to  the  arrangement  adopted  by  Gieseler,  in  his  Church  History,  by 
which  the  evidence  is  thrown  into  footnotes;  but  this  plan  was 


Preface  to  the  First  Edition. 


9 


finally  rejected  as  equally  cumbersome  and  unnecessary.  I  have 
not  been  satisfied  to  write  a  chapter  or  a  paragraph,  however,  until 
the  results  of  a  critical  comparison  of  all  the  accessible  sources  and 
authorities  had  crystallized  in  a  clear  conception,  definite,  concrete, 
and  satisfactory,  at  least  to  my  own  mind.  Usually  when  in  doubt, 
I  have  said  so.  But  I  have  written  under  the  growing  conviction 
that  in  a  work  of  this  kind,  the  reader  has  a  right  to  expect  conclu- 
sions; and  I  have  striven,  without  dogmatism  or  commentary  un- 
warranted by  the  facts,  to  leave  as  few  open  questions  behind  me 
as  possible.  This  general  method  has  been  adopted,  because  ( i ) 
it  is  the  only  conclusive  one  on  points  in  dispute;  (2)  it  is  most 
satisfactory  on  all  points  to  the  critical  reader,  who  is  generally  put 
in  possession  of  sufficient  evidence  to  test  the  validity  of  the  conclu- 
sions arrived  at;  and  (3)  it  is  most  entertaining  to  the  general 
reader,  who  is  thus  afforded  a  pleasing  variety.  Occasionally,  short 
excursions  into  the  field  of  our  general  history  have  been  indulged 
in;  for,  as  Hallam  observes,  at  some  periods  constitutional  and 
general  history  nearly  coincide.  Presuming,  however,  upon  the 
reader's  familiarity  with  this  outlying  territory,  I  have,  in  general, 
confined  the  narrative  to  the  strictly  constitutional  and  govern- 
mental materials,  which  are  rich  and  abundant. 

Perhaps  it  ought  to  be  added,  that  I  have  sought  to  pursue  these 
inquiries  in  a  purely  historical  spirit.  My  aim  has  been  first  to  get 
at  the  truth — sometimes  a  task  of  considerable  difficulty — and  then 
to  tell  it.  No  controversial  aim  or  interest  has  consciously  warped 
a  judgment  or  shaded  a  statement.  I  have  no  disposition  to  con- 
ceal the  fact  that  I  am  a  member  and  minister  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South;  but,  as  the  whole  period  covered  by  this 
volume  relates  to  the  original,  undivided  household  of  our  Ameri- 
can Methodist  faith,  and  is  the  common  birthright  of  the  two 
Episcopal  Methodisms,  I  trust  that  both  the  catholic  spirit  and  the 
truthful  letter  of  this  history  will  commend  themselves  to  my 
brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  would  be  too 
much  to  hope  that  all  the  conclusions  herein  expressed  will  be 


lo  Preface  to  the  First  Edition. 

universally  accepted;  but  it  is  not  too  much  to  expect  that  all 
lovers  and  seekers  of  truth  will  find  in  this  work  little  to  hinder 
and  something  to  aid  them  in  their  search. 

Our  constitutional  epochs  of  1773,  when  the  first  American 
Conference  met;  of  1784,  when  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Christmas 
Conference  organized  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  of  1787, 
when  the  American  Church  asserted  its  autonomy;  of  1792,  when 
the  first  Quadrennial  General  Conference  assembled;  of  1808, 
when  the  Delegated  General  Conference  and  its  Constitution  came 
into  existence;  and  of  1 820-1 828,  when  the  constitutional  govern- 
ment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  underwent  its  first  severe 
strain,  have,  of  course,  been  treated  with  special  fullness.  In  this 
last-mentioned  period,  the  evidence,  not  hitherto  accessible  in  its 
entirety,  has  constrained  the  conclusion  that  the  sectional  severance 
of  American  Methodism,  on  constitutional  issues  which  still  divide 
it,  was  really  effected.  The  fifth  volume  of  Dr.  Stevens's  able 
history  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  will  cover  the 
period  beginning  with  1820,  is  announced  as  almost  ready.  I  am 
sorry  not  to  be  able  to  consult  it  before  going  to  press.  Important 
later  matters  in  1844  ^^'^  down  to  1S92 — the  centenary  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference — have  been  treated,  where  chronological  order  has 
been  sacrificed  to  topical  completeness. 

To  Bishops  Galloway  and  Hendrix,  I  must  here  express  my  ap- 
preciation of  their  kind  encouragement.  J.  J.  T. 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  November  25,  1893. 


CONTENTS. 


BOOK  I. 

ENGLISH  METHODISM  TO  1784.  Page 

Chap.      I.  Origin  of  the  Conference   15 

Chap.     II.  Shall  Wesley's  Powers  Descend  to  the  Conference 

OR  TO  A  Designated  Successor?   25 

Chap.    III.  Dr.  Coke  and  the  Deed  of  Declaration   36 

BOOK  II. 

AMERICAN  METHODISM  TO  1784. 

Chap.    IV.  Beginnings  of  Methodism  in  America   47 

Chap.      V.  The  First  American  Conference,  1773   58 

Chap.    VI.  The  Annual  Conferences  to  the  Close  of  Rankin's 

Administration,  1777   71 

Chap.  VII.  Discord  and  Disunion  :  1778-1780   94 

Chap.  VIII.  Peace  and  Prosperity:  1781-1784   121 


Chap.    IX.  The  Doctrinal  Standards  of  Ecumenical  Methodism.  139 


BOOK  III. 

THE  GRAND  CLIMACTERIC  TEAR:  1784. 

Chap.  X.  The  Deed  of  Declaration  and  Wesley's  Final  Set- 
tlement OF  English  Methodism   151 

Chap.  XI.  The  Christmas  Conference  and  Wesley's  Final  Set- 
tlement OF  Episcopal  Methodism   161 

Chap.  XII.  The  First  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 

Church  308 

BOOK  IV. 

FROM  THE  CHRISTMAS  CONFERENCE  TO  THE  IN- 
STITUTION OF  THE  QUADRENNIAL 
GENERAL  CONFERENCE. 

Chap.  XIII.  The  Annual  Conferences  from  1785  to  1792   221 

Chap.  XIV.  The  Council   243 

(11) 


12 


Contents. 


BOOK  V. 

THE  QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCES  TO 
THE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE  DELEGATED 

GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  ^^^^ 

Chap.      XV.  The  General  Conference  of  1792   257 

Chap.    XVI.  The  General  Conference  of  1796   267 

Chap.  XVII.  The  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1804   285 

Chap.  XVIIl.  The  General  Conference  of  1808   297 

BOOK  VI. 

THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCES  OF  THE 
UNDIVIDED  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

Chap.  XIX.  The  First  and  Second  Delegated  General  Confer- 
ences, 1812  and  1816   327 

Chap.  XX.  The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  and 
Mr.  Soule's  First  Election  to  the  Episcopacy, 
1820   338 

Chap.  XXI,  The  Quadrennium,  1820-1824:  the  Contrasted  Gov- 
ernments OF  the  Two  Episcopal  Methodisms   364 

Chap.  XXII.  The  Fourth  and  Fifth  Delegated  General  Con- 
ferences, AND  THE  Intervening  Quadrennium, 
1824-1828   381 

Chap.  XXIII.  The  Sixth  and  Seventh  Delegated  General  Con- 
ferences, 1832  and  1836:  Conclusion   410 

Chap.  XXIV.  The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  1840.  415 

Chap.  XXV.  The  General  Conference  of  1844:  the  Louisville 
Convention  and  the  Organization  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South   435 

APPENDICES. 

I.  Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  All  the  Editions  of  the 
Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America 

from  1785  to  1808   463 

II.  Fletcher's  Suggestions  to  Wesley  for  the  Organization  of 

Methodism   477 

III.  Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1808   482 

IV.  The  Constitutional  Validity  of  the  Plan  of  Separation..  .  492 
V.  The  Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government  in 

American  Methodism   499 

VI.  The  Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government  and  the 

Earliest  Official  Use  of  the  Term  General  Conference.  523 

VII.  The  First  Discipline  and  the  Large  Minutes  of  1780   532 

Index   603 


BOOK  I. 


English  Methodism  to  1784. 

I.  Origin  of  the  Conference. 

II.  Shall  Wesley's  Powers  Descend  to  the  Confer- 
ence OR  to  a  Designated  Successor? 
III.  Dr.  Coke  and  the  Deed  of  Declaration. 

(13) 


CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY 

OF 

American  Episcopal  Methodism. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

SINCE  1744  the  two  constant  factors  of  Methodist  polity, 
(i)  a  superintending  and  appointing  power,  and  (2)  a 
consulting  body  called  the  Conference,  have  been  continu- 
ously operative. 

These  two  factors  are  constitutional  or  elemental  in  the 
government  of  Methodism.  The  system  itself  changes  as 
either  of  these  elements  changes  or  is  variously  combined 
with  the  other:  the  disappearance  of  either  is  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  system.  Something  better  might  take  its  place, 
but  it  would  be  also  something  different.  The  peculiar 
economy  of  Methodism  would  cease  to  exist. 

The  origin,  development,  histor}^  and  relations  of  these 
two  factors,  the  former  chiefly  executive  and  the  latter  chiefly 
legislative,  afford  the  principal,  if  not  exclusive,  materials 
for  a  constitutional  history, of  Methodism,  a  task  not  hither- 
to accepted  as  the  express  province  of  any  single  work.  It 
need  hardly  be  added  that  our  inquiry  concerns  itself  alto- 
gether with  polity  and  government  and  not  at  all  with  dogma 
and  doctrine. 

With  the  development  and  definition  of  the  powers  and 
prerogatives  of  the  Conference,  with  its  President,  Secre- 
tary, other  officers,  and  committees,  in  English  Methodism, 

(15) 


i6 


English  Methodism  to  1784.. 


after  1784,  "  the  grand  climacteric  year  of  Methodism,"  * 
which  gave  a  determinate  and  permanent  status  to  both  its 
English  and  American  forms;  or,  at  least,  after  1791,  the 
year  of  the  great  Founder's  death,  we  have  nothing  to  do  in 
this  volume. 

From  1739,  the  year  of  the  rise  of  the  United  Society,  to 
1791,  it  may  be  said  in  general,  the  supreme  superintending 
and  appointing  power,  and  the  final  legislative  as  well,  in 
both  Methodisms,  English  and  American,  resided  in  Mr. 
Wesley  alone.  Even  when  he  appointed  Coke  and  Asbury 
to  their  high  office,  Wesley  had  no  thought  of  abandoning 
his  own  jurisdiction  over  the  American  province  of  his  pa- 
triarchate. He  was  not  only  a  scriptural  episcopus  (as  he 
declared  of  himself),!  for  purposes  of  ordination,  but  in  point 
of  power  and  its  use  a  Bishop  in  fact,t  freely  exercising  an 
absolute  authority  such  as  has  scarcely  ever,  before  or  since, 
fallen  to  the  lot  of  any  one  man. 

Mr.  Wesley's  uniform  defense  and  justification  of  his  pos- 
session and  exercise  of  these  extraordinary  powers  was  that 
he  was  himself  the  creator,  the  sole  author  and  finisher,  of 
the  system  which  gave  rise  to  them ;  and  that  all  subordinate 
agents  had  voluntarily  entered  into  a  compact  with  him  on 
stipulated  and  well-known  conditions  which  they  were  free 
at  any  time  to  dissolve  and  annul.  This  absolutist,  for  such 
he  was  in  fact  and  principle,  planted  himself  squarely  on  the 
simple  declaration  that  he  was  free  to  do  what  he  would  with 
his  own.  Whatever  might  be  thought  in  our  country  and 
time  of  the  expediency  of  such  a  personal  government,  his- 

*Dr.  Whitehead,  Life  of  Wesley,  Amer.  Ed.,  Boston,  1844,  II.  248. 
•f- Letter  to  Charles  Wesley,  Aug.  19,  1785:  Tyerman,  Life  and  Times, 
III.  444. 

J  The  first  question  in  the  American  Minutes  for  1789  is,  "Who  are  the 
persons  that  exercise  the  episcopal  office  in  the  Methodist  Church  in  Europe 
and  America.'"  The  answer  is,  "John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis 
Asbury  by  regular  order  and  succession." — Minutes,  Ed.  of  1795,  p.  119, 
where  a  footnote  refers  to  the  Discipline  of  1789  (Sec.  IV.)  for  a  definition 
of  "  regular  order  and  succession."  Thus  John  Wesley  was  virtually  dubbed 
"  Bishop  "  two  years  before  his  death,  despite  his  preference  for  "  knave, 
fool,  rascal,  or  scoundrel,"  vigorously  expressed  in  September,  1788. 


Origin  of  the  Conference. 


17 


tory  has  no  other  office  than  to  record  the  fact.  And  wis' 
dom  is  justified  of  her  children.  How  these  supreme  pow- 
ers of  Mr.  Wesley  were  modified  in  America  after  1784  it 
will  be  a  part  of  our  task  in  the  following  pages  to  show. 

From  1739,  the  true  epoch  of  Methodism,*  as  we  have 
assumed,  to  1744,  the  year  of  the  assembUng  of  the  first 
Conference,  Mr.  Wesley  embodied  in  himself,  without  limi- 
tations of  any  kind  or  degree,  springing  either  from  a  funda- 
mental compact  which  bound  or  engaged  him,  or  from  the 
independent  activities  of  personal  agents,  all  controlling  au- 
thorit}^  and  power,  of  whatever  nature,  in  Methodism.  The 
calling  of  the  Conference,  though  hardly  a  sharing  of  his 
powers,  was  his  first  movement  toward  a  division  of  his 
burdens. 

John  Wesley  arrived  in  England  from  America  February 
I,  1738,  the  day  after  George  Whitefield  had  sailed  for  the 
continent  Wesley  had  just  left.  His  labors  at  Oxford  and 
elsewhere  before  he  went  abroad  as  a  missionary  with  Gen- 
eral Oglethorpe,  and  his  varied  experiences  as  a  parish 
priest  in  Georgia,  while  of  intense  personal  interest  and  af- 
fording rich  materials  for  a  study  of  the  man,  have  too 
remote  a  bearing  upon  his  subsequent  organization  of  Meth- 
odism in  England  and  America  to  detain  us  here ;  his  Amer- 
ican adventures,  however,  may  briefly  engage  our  attention 
when  we  come  to  notice  the  beginnings  of  Methodism  in 
America. 


*In  his  Church  History,  Wesley  assigns  other  dates,  as  the  founding  of 
the  Holy  Club  at  Oxford  in  1729,  ten  years  before,  or  the  meeting  begun  at 
Fetter-lane,  May  i,  1738,  by  the  advice  of  Peter  Bohler;  but  his  well-known 
introduction  to  the  General  Rules  begins,  "  In  the  latter  end  of  the  year  1739 
eight  or  ten  persons  came  to  me  in  London,  etc.  .  .  .  this  was  the 
rise  of  the  United  Society."  The  corner  stone  of  the  first  Methodist  chapel 
was  laid  in  Bristol,  May  12,  1739,  and  the  Foundry  was  opened  for  public 
worship  in  London,  Nov.  11,  1739.  Wesley  did  not  formally  separate  from 
the  Moravians,  however,  until  July  20,  1740,  and  Dr.  Smith,  in  his  History 
of  Wesleyan  Methodism,  argues  for  this  date.  Wesley,  however,  elsewhere 
fixes  November,  1738,  as  the  time  when  the  little  company  first  came  to 
him  in  London.  See  Minutes,  Ed.  1812,  L  58;  Ed.  1862,  L  60.  Compare 
Stevens,  History  of  Methodism,  I.  124,  131,  132;  Tyerman,  L  282,  309,  310. 
2 


i8 


English  Methodism  to  1784.. 


At  a  Moravian  meeting  in  Aldersgate  street,  London, 
May  24,  1738,  John  Wesley  experienced  the  grace  of  conver- 
sion. The  servant  became  a  son,  and  henceforth  served 
in  his  Father's  house  with  unremitting  dihgence. 

His  genius  for  organization  and  government  finds  early 
illustration  in  an  agreement  with  Messrs.  Gambold  and 
Robson  touching  Moravian  affairs.  There  is  much  truth  in 
that  view  of  history  which,  renouncing  drum  and  trumpet, 
regards  it  as  an  accurate  portrayal  of  the  life  of  the  people ; 
but  it  verges  on  untruth  when  it  disposes  of  epoch-makers 
and  reformers  as  no  more  than  the  product  of  their  times. 
History  must  indeed  take  account  of  the  people,  but  its 
crises  and  changes,  its  free,  fresh,  full  fountains  are  found 
in  the  biographies  of  its  heroes.  There  can  be  no  more  in- 
teresting discovery  than  that  of  an  influential  system  of 
thought  or  public  pohcy  as  it  lies  in  germ  in  the  mind  of  a 
single  person  before  it  is  put  forth  to  mold  the  opinions  or 
determine  the  actions  of  mankind.  This  little  compact 
which  Mr.  Wesley  drew  up  Nov.  12,  1739,  embraces  a 
sketch  of  what  afterwards  became  (i)  annual  conferences, 
(2)  quarterly  meetings,  (3)  monthly  advices  of  the  progress 
of  the  work,  and  (4)  systematic  provision  for  its  extension. 
Mr.  Wesley  says:  "After  much  prayer  and  consultation 
we  agreed:  i.  To  meet  yearly  in  London,  if  God  permit, 
on  the  eve  of  Ascension  day.  2.  To  fix  then  the  business 
to  be  done  the  ensuing  year — where,  when,  and  by  whom. 
3.  To  meet  quarterly  there,  as  many  as  can;  namely,  on  the 
second  Tuesday  in  July,  October,  and  January.  4.  To  send 
a  monthly  account  to  one  another  of  what  God  hath  done 
in  each  of  our  stations.  5.  To  inquire  whether  Mr.  Hall, 
Sympson,  Rogers,  Ingham,  Hutchins,  Kinchin,  Stonehouse, 
Cennick,  Oxlee,  and  Brown  will  join  us  herein.  6.  To  con- 
sider whether  there  be  any  others  of  our  spiritual  friends 
who  are  able  and  willing  so  to  do."  * 

"  But  this  plan,"  observes  Dr.  Whitehead,  "  was  never 


*Tyerman,  Life  and  Times  of  John  Wesley,  I.  281;  Whitehead's  Life  o* 
Wesley,  II.  79,  Amer.  Ed.,  Boston,  1844. 


Origin  of  the  Conference. 


19 


put  into  execution."  *  The  evening  before  this  arrange- 
ment at  Wycombe  with  Gambold  and  Robson,  Mr.  Wesley 
had  preached  to  seven  or  eight  thousand  people  in  the 
Foundry  at  London;  and  on  July  20,  1740,  occurred  his 
formal  separation  from  the  Moravians. 

Though  the  London  Society,  which  has  maintained  an 
unbroken  existence  to  this  day,  was  organized  in  1739,  the 
first  Yearly  Conference  did  not  convene  until  June  25,  1744. 
From  that  time  until  his  death  in  1791,  Mr.  Wesley  held  a 
Conference  every  year — forty-seven  in  all. 

This  annual  English  Conference  Mr.  Wesley  called  into 
existence.  He  made  it.  It  exercised  such  powers  as  he  ac- 
corded to  it.  It  was  his  organ  created  to  answer  his  ends. 
Methodist  government  from  this  beginning  has  continued  to 
be  the  combination  of  the  two  factors,  a  personal  executive 
and  a  Conference,  first  of  the  preachers,  "  in  connection 
with  Mr.  John  Wesley,"  and  then,  in  recent  times,  of  min- 
isters and  members.  The  system  has  found  its  mature  ex- 
pression and  full  embodiment  in  America — in  the  Episcopacy 
and  the  General  Conference. 

This  first  Conference,  which  met  in  the  Foundry,  London, 
consisted  of  six  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England— the 
Rev,  John  Hodges,  John  Meriton,  Henry  Piers,  and  Sam- 
uel Taylor, t  besides  John  and  Charles  Wesley — and  four 
lay  preachers,  namely,  Thomas  Maxfield,  Thomas  Rich- 
ards, John  Bennet,  and  John  Downes.  Of  these  four,  three 
afterwards  abandoned  Wesley:  Downes  only  lived  and  died 
a  Methodist. 

June  24,  the  day  before  the  opening  of  the  Conference, 
a  love-feast  was  held,  at  which  the  six  English  clergy 
were  present,  and  the  Lord's  Supper  was  administered  to 
the  whole  of  the  London  Society,  numbering  more  than  two 
thousand  members.  The  Conference  was  opened  with 
prayer  and  a  sermon  by  Charles  Wesley,  who  baptized  an 
adult,  who  there  and  then  found  peace  with  God.t 


*  Life,  II.  79.      tFor  notices  of  these  clergymen,  see  Tyerman,  I.  442. 
JTyerman,  Life  and  Times  of  John  Wesley,  I.  443. 


20 


English  Methodism  to  1784.. 


The  proceedings  of  the  Conference  were  conducted  in 
the  form  of  question  and  answer,  which  is  still  the  canon- 
ical Methodist  usage,  and  Mr.  Wesley  opened  the  matters  to 
come  before  the  body  as  follows : 

"  It  is  desired  that  all  things  be  considered  as  in  the  imme- 
diate presence  of  God;  that  we  meet  with  a  single  eye,  and 
as  Httle  children,  who  have  everything  to  learn;  that  every 
point  which  is  proposed  may  be  examined  to  the  foundation; 
that  every  person  may  speak  freely  whatever  is  in  his  heart; 
and  that  every  question  which  may  arise  should  be  thorough- 
ly debated  and  settled. 

Need  we  be  fearful  of  doing  this?  What  are  we 
afraid  of?  Of  overturning  our  first  principles?  A.  If  they 
are  false,  the  sooner  they  are  overturned  the  better.  If  the}'^ 
are  true,  they  will  bear  the  strictest  examination.  Let  us 
all  pray  for  a  willingness  to  receive  light,  to  know  of  every 
doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God. 

"  <=^.  How  may  the  time  of  the  Conference  be  made 
more  eminently  a  time  of  watching  unto  prayer?  A.  i. 
While  we  are  conversing,  let  us  have  an  especial  care  to  set 
God  always  before  us.  2.  In  the  intermediate  hours  let  us 
visit  none  but  the  sick,  and  spend  all  the  time  that  remains 
in  retirement.  3.  Let  us  therein  give  ourselves  to  prayer  for 
one  another,  and  for  a  blessing  upon  our  labor. 

"  How  far  does  each  of  us  agree  to  submit  to  the 
judgment  of  the  majority?  A.  In  speculative  things,  each 
can  only  submit  so  far  as  his  judgment  shall  be  convinced. 
In  every  practical  point,  each  will  submit  so  far  as  he  can 
without  wounding  his  conscience. 

"  Can  a  Christian  submit  any  farther  than  this  to  any 
man,  or  number  of  men  upon  earth?  A.  It  is  undeniably 
certain  he  cannot;  either  to  Bishop,  Convocation,  or  Gen- 
eral Council.  And  this  is  that  grand  principle  of  private 
judgment  on  which  all  the  reformers  proceeded,  '  Every 
man  must  judge  for  himself ;  because  every  man  must  give 
an  account  of  himself  to  God.'  "  * 


♦Minutes,  Ed.  1812,  I.  3,  4;  but  for  primitive  form,  see  Ed.  1862,  I.  22. 


Origin  of  the  Conference. 


21 


The  last  two  questions  and  answers  assert  the  principles 
of  Christian  liberty  which  Methodism  has  always  exemplified, 
but  it  might  be  inferred  from  the  question  about  submitting 
to  the  majority  that  after  debate  decisions  were  made  by 
vote  of  the  Conference.*  Such  was  not  the  case.  The  Con- 
ference debated,  but  the  Chair  decided.  "Mr.  Wesley  w'as 
the  government;  and,  though  he  invited  the  preachers  to 
confer  with  him,  lie  did  not  propose  to  abandon  any  of  his 
original  power.  They  had  a  voice  by  his  permission,  but 
he  reserved  the  right  to  direct."  f 

That  the  Conference  was  thus  constituted  and  continued 
with  no  more  power  than  Mr.  Wesley  allowed  it  is  abundant- 
ly evident  from  a  defense  of  his  course  which  Mr.  Wesley 
issued  at  the  Conference  in  Leeds  in  1766,  twenty-two 
years  later,  and  from  a  letter  which  he  wrote  as  late  as  Jan- 
uary, 1780.    In  1766  among  other  things  he  wrote: 

"  In  1744  I  wrote  to  several  clergymen,  and  to  all  who 
then  served  me  as  sons  in  the  gospel,  desiring  them  to  meet 
me  in  London,  to  give  me  their  advice  concerning  the  best 
method  of  carrying  on  the  w^ork  of  God.  They  did  not  de- 
sire this  meeting;  but  /  did,  kno^Nang  that  'in  a  multitude 
of  counselors  there  is  safet}'.'  And  when  their  number  in- 
creased, so  that  it  was  neither  needful  nor  convenient  to  in- 
vite them  all,  for  several  years  I  wrote  to  those  with  whom  I 
desired  to  confer;  and  these  only  met  at  the  place  appointed, 
till  at  length  I  gave  a  general  permission  that  all  who  desired 
it  might  come.  Observe  !  I  myself  sent  for  these,  of  my  own 
free  choice;  and  I  sent  for  them  to  advise  not  govern  me. 
Neither  did  I  at  any  of  those  times  divest  myself  of  any  part 
of  t\i?L\.  fozver  above  described,  which  the  providence  of  God 
had  cast  upon  me  without  any  design  or  choice  of  mine. 

"  What  is  that  power?  It  is  a  power  of  admitting  into  and 
excluding  from  the  societies  under  my  care;  of  choosing 

*  Smith's  "Disciplinary  Minutes"  of  1749,  say,  "How  far  does  each  of  us 
agree  to  submit  to  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  rest.'"'  (Hist.  Wesleyan 
Meth.,  I.  227-229.)    So  read  the  revised  Minutes  (London,  1862),  I.  22. 

I  Neely,  Governing  Conference  in  Methodism,  pp.  9,  10. 


22 


English  Methodism  to  178^. 


and  removing  stewards ;  of  receiving  or  of  not  receiving 
helpers;  of  appointing  them  when,  where,  and  how  to  help 
me;  and  of  desiring  any  of  them  to  meet  me  when  I  see 
good.  And  as  it  was  merely  in  obedience  to  the  providence 
of  God  and  for  the  good  of  the  people  that  I  at  first  accept- 
ed this  power,  which  I  never  sought — nay,  a  hundred  times 
labored  to  throw  off — so  it  is  on  the  same  considerations, 
not  for  profit,  honor,  or  pleasure,  that  I  use  it  at  this  day. 

"  But  several  gentlemen  are  much  offended  at  my  having 
so  much  power.  My  answer  to  them  is  this:  'I  did  not 
seek  any  part  of  this  power;  it  came  upon  me  unawares. 
But  when  it  was  come,  not  daring  to  bury  that  talent,  I  used 
it  to  the  best  of  my  judgment;  yet  I  never  was  fond  of  it.  I 
always  did,  and  do  now,  bear  it  as  my  burden — the  burden 
which  God  lays  upon  me — and  therefore  I  dare  not  yet  lay 
it  down.'  But  if  you  can  tell  me  any  one  or  any  five  men 
to  whom  I  may  transfer  this  burden,  who  can  and  will  do 
just  what  I  do  now,  I  will  heartily  thank  both  them  and  you. 

"  But  some  of  our  helpers  say,  '  This  is  shackling  free- 
born  Englishmen,''  and  demand  a  free  Conference ;  that  is, 
a  meeting  of  all  the  preachers,  wherein  all  things  shall  be 
determined  by  most  votes.  I  answer:  '  It  is  possible,  after 
my  death,  something  of  this  kind  may  take  place;  but  not 
while  I  live.  To  me  the  preachers  have  engaged  themselves 
to  submit  to  serve  me  as  sons  in  the  gospel.  But  they  are 
not  thus  engaged  to  any  man,  or  number  of  men,  besides. 
To  me  the  people  in  general  will  submit.  But  they  will  not 
yet  submit  to  any  other.'  It  is  nonsense,  then,  to  call  my 
using  this  power  'shackling  freeborn  EngHshmen.'  None 
needs  to  submit  to  it  unless  he  will;  so  there  is  no  shackling 
in  the  case.  Every  preacher  and  every  member  may  leave 
me  when  he  pleases.  But  while  he  chooses  to  stay,  it  is  on 
the  same  terms  that  he  joined  me  at  first."  * 

In  1780,  thirty-six  years  after  the  organization  of  the  Con- 
ference, Wesley  was  not  slow  to  defend  the  constitution  he 

*  Minutes,  Ed.  1812,  I.  59,  60;  Ed.  1862,  I.  61,  62.  Tyerman,  Life  and 
Times,  II.  578,  579;  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  V.  220,  221. 


Origin  of  the  Conference. 


23 


had  given  it  and  under  which  it  had  continued  to  act.  In  a 
letter  written  in  January  of  that  year  he  says : 

"  You  seem  likewise  to  have  quite  a  wrong  idea  of  a  Con- 
ference. For  above  six  years  after  my  return  to  England 
there  was  no  such  thing.  I  then  desired  some  of  our  preach- 
ers to  meet  me,  in  order  to  advise,  not  control  me.  And, 
you  may  observe,  they  had  no  power  at  all  but  what  I  exer- 
cised through  them.  I  chose  to  exercise  the  power  which 
God  had  given  me  in  this  manner,  both  to  avoid  ostentation 
and  gently  to  habituate  the  people  to  obey  them  when  I 
should  be  taken  from  their  head.  But  as  long  as  I  remain 
with  them,  the  fundamental  rule  of  Methodism  remains  in- 
violate. As  long  as  any  preacher  joins  with  me,  he  is  lo  be 
directed  by  me  in  his  work.  Do  not  you  see,  then,  that 
Brother  M.,  whatever  his  intentions  might  be,  acted  as 
wrong  as  wrong  could  be;  and  that  the  representing  of  this 
as  the  common  cause  of  the  preachers  was  the  way  to  com- 
mon destruction — the  way  to  turn  all  their  heads  and  to  set 
them  in  arms?  It  was  a  blow  at  the  very  root  of  Metho- 
dism. I  could  not,  therefore,  do  less  than  I  did;  it  was  the 
very  least  that  could  be  done,  for  fear  that  evil  should 
spread."  * 

In  the  Leeds  deliverance  of  1766,  it  is  noteworthy  (i) 
that  Wesley  expresses  a  willingness  to  share  his  powers  and 
responsibilities,  "  if  you  can  tell  me  any  one  or  any  five  men 
to  whom  I  may  transfer  this  burden;  "  and  (2)  that  he  an- 
ticipates that  a  "free  Conference,"  exercising  his  powers, 
may  come  into  existence  after  his  death.  Already  his  mind 
was  meditating  provision  for  the  perpetuity  of  Methodism 
after  the  personal  bond  which  held  it  together  should  be 
dissolved.  How  this  finally  led  to  the  enrollment  of  the 
Deed  of  Declaration  in  Chancery  and  the  creation  of  the  Le- 
gal Hundred  we  shall  discover  in  following  chapters . 

Having  seen  how  the  English  Conference  was  constituted, 
with  limited,  advisory  powers,  during  Mr.  Wesley's  life,  it 
may  be  of  interest,  in  concluding  this  chapter,  to  note  briefly 


*  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  VII.  228. 


24 


English  Methodism  to  lySjj.. 


some  of  the  doings,  in  matters  governmental,  of  the  first 
Conference  in  1744.  The  three  general  heads  of  debate 
were,  i.  What  to  teach;  2.  How  to  teach;  and  3.  What  to 
do;  i.  e.,  how  to  regulate  doctrine,  discipline,  and  practice. 
The  doctrinal  conclusions  of  the  Conference  do  not  here 
concern  us.* 

The  Methodists  were  at  this  time  divided  into  four  sec- 
tions: (i)  the  united  societies,  (2)  the  bands,  (3)  the  select 
societies,  and  (4)  the  penitents.  The  united  societies  con- 
sisted of  awakened  persons,  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that 
from  the  beginning  "seekers"  have  been  eligible  to  mem- 
bership; the  bands,  of  those  who  professed  conversion;  the 
select  societies,  of  those  from  the  bands  who  seemed  to  walk 
in  the  light:  the  penitents  were  the  backsliders.  The  lay 
assistants  were  to  expound;  to  meet  the  united  societies, 
bands,  select  societies,  and  penitents  once  a  week;  to  visit 
the  classes  quarterly,  and  to  decide  differences;  to  receive 
on  trial  and  to  put  the  disorderly  back  on  trial;  to  see  that 
stewards,  leaders,  schoolmasters,  and  housekeepers  faithful- 
ly discharged  their  duties,  and  to  meet  the  stewards  and 
leaders  weekly  to  audit  their  accounts.! 

With  reference  to  the  Church  of  England,  it  was  resolved 
to  defend  her  doctrine,  to  obey  the  Bishops  and  canons  as 
far  as  the  Methodists  conscientiously  could ;  but  to  avoid  to 
the  utmost  entailing  a  schism  in  the  Church. | 

Such  were  the  more  important  decisions  in  matters  of  pol- 
ity and  administration  reached  in  the  first  Methodist  Con- 
ference of  1744. 

*See,  however,  Minutes,  Ed.  1812,  I.  4-8;  Ed.  1862,  I.  1-5;  Tyerman,  I. 
443,  444,  and  Smith,  Hist,  of  Wesleyan  Meth.,  I.  229. 
tMinutes,  Ed.  1812,  I.  14,  15;  Ed.  1862,  I.  22-24. 

JMinutes,  Ed.  1812,  I.  8,  9;  Ed.  1862,  I.  5,  6;  cf.  Tyerman,  I.  444-446. 

Note. — The  revised  Minutes  of  1862  separate  the  "  Doctrinal  Minutes" 
(1744-1747)  from  the  "Disciplinary  Minutes"  (1744-1749),  both  published 
by  Mr.  Wesley  in  Dublin  in  1749.  In  the  Minutes  of  1812,  the  former  are 
so  interwoven  with  the  Large  Minutes  of  1763  as  to  lose  their  "docu- 
mentary character";  the  latter  had  not  been  reprinted  until  1S62.  My  only 
knowledge  of  them  when  the  first  edition  of  this  work  was  published  was 
due  to  Smith;  I  am  now  able  to  verify  and  support  the  text  by  the  Minutes 
of  1862  through  the  kindness  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  David  J.  Waller. 


CHAPTER  11. 


SHALL  Wesley's  powers  descend  to  the  conference 

OR  TO  A  DESIGNATED  SUCCESSOR? 

AT  the  twenty-sixth  annual  conference  of  English  Meth- 
odism, which  opened  at  Leeds,  Aug.  i,  1769,  two  im- 
portant measures  were  taken. 

The  first  concerned  America:  "  We  have  a  pressing  call 
from  our  brethren  at  New  York,  who  have  built  a  preaching 
house,  to  come  over  and  help  them.  Who  is  wiUing  to  go  ?  " 
Answer:  "  Richard  Boardman  and  Joseph  Pilmoor." 
Question:  "  What  can  we  do  further  in  token  of  our  broth- 
erly love?  "  Answer:  "  Let  us  now  make  a  collection  among 
ourselves.  This  was  immediately  done;  and,  out  of  it,  £50 
were  allotted  towards  the  payment  of  the  debt,  and  about 
£20  given  to  our  brethren  for  their  passage."  * 

It  is,  however,  doubtful  whether,  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed, this  was  the  first  collection  taken  for  the  American 
Mission ;  for  six  months  before  this  Wesley  had  permitted 
Robert  Costerdine,  in  charge  of  the  Sheffield  circuit,  to 
read  publicly  on  any  Sunday  the  letter  which  had  been  re- 
ceived from  New  York  and  "  to  receive  what  the  hearers 
were  willing  to  give."t 

As  the  first  important  measure  concerned  the  establish- 
ment of  Methodism  in  America,  so  the  second  concerned  its 
perpetuity  in  England.  Friday,  Aug.  4,  Wesley  read  to  the 
Conference  the  following  paper: 

"■My  dear  Brethren:  i.  It  has  long  been  my  desire, 
that  all  those  ministers  of  our  Church,  [/.  e.,  ordained  clergy 
of  the  Church  of  England]  who  believe  and  preach  salva- 
tion by  faith,  might  cordially  agree  between  themselves,  and 
not  hinder  but  help  one  another.    After  occasionally  press- 


*Minutes,  Ed.  1812,  I.  8s,  86;  Ed.  1862,  I.  86.    t  Tyerman,  III.  48. 

(25) 


26  English  Methodism  to  178^. 

ing  this,  in  private  conversation,  wherever  I  had  opportunity, 
I  wrote  down  my  thoughts  upon  the  head,  and  sent  them  to 
each  in  a  letter.  Out  of  fifty  or  sixty,  to  whom  I  wrote, 
only  three  vouchsafed  me  an  answer.  So  I  give  this  up. 
I  can  do  no  more.  They  are  a  rope  of  sand,  and  such  they 
will  continue. 

"  2.  But  it  is  otherwise  with  the  traveling  preachers  in 
our  connection.  You  are  at  present  one  body.  You  act  in 
concert  with  each  other,  and  by  united  counsels.  And  now 
is  the  time  to  consider  what  can  be  done,  in  order  to  contin- 
ue this  union.  Indeed,  as  long  as  I  live,  there  will  be  no 
great  difficulty.  I  am,  under  God,  a  center  of  union  to  all 
our  travehng,  as  well  as  local  preachers.  They  all  know  me 
and  my  communication.  They  all  love  me  for  my  works' 
sake:  and,  therefore,  were  it  only  out  of  regard  to  me,  they 
will  continue  connected  with  each  other.  But  by  what  means 
may  this  connection  be  preserved,  when  God  removes  me 
from  you  ? 

"3.  I  take  it  for  granted,  it  cannot  be  preserved,  by  any 
means,  between  those  who  have  not  a  single  eye.  Those 
who  aim  at  anything  but  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  salvation 
of  men;  who  desire  or  seek  any  earthly  thing,  whether 
honor,  profit,  or  ease,  will  not,  cannot  continue  in  the  con- 
nection; it  will  not  answer  their  design.  Some  of  them, 
perhaps  a  fourth  of  the  whole  number,  will  procure  prefer- 
ment in  the  Church.  Others  will  turn  Independents,  and 
get  separate  congregations,  like  John  Edwards  and  Charles 
Skelton.  Lay  your  accounts  with  this,  and  be  not  surprised 
if  some,  you  do  not  suspect,  be  of  this  number. 

"4.  But  what  method  can  be  taken,  to  preserve  a  firm 
union  between  those  who  choose  to  remain  together?  Per- 
haps you  might  take  some  such  steps  as  these.  On  notice 
of  my  death,  let  all  the  preachers,  in  England  and  Ireland, 
repair  to  London  within  six  weeks.  Let  them  seek  God  by 
solemn  fasting  and  prayer.  Let  them  draw  up  articles  of 
agreement,  to  be  signed  by  those  who  choose  to  act  in  con- 
cert.   Let  those  be  dismissed,  who  do  not  choose  it,  in  the 


WAo  Shall  Inherit  Wesley's  Poxvers? 


27 


most  friendly  manner  possible.  Let  them  choose  by  votes  a 
committee  of  three,  five,  or  seven,  each  of  whom  is  to  be 
moderator  in  his  turn.  Let  the  committee  do  what  I  do 
now;  propose  preachers  to  be  tried,  admitted,  or  excluded; 
fix  the  place  of  each  preacher  for  the  ensuing  year,  and  the 
time  of  next  conference. 

"  5.  Can  anything  be  done  now,  in  order  to  lay  a  founda- 
tion for  this  future  union?  Would  it  not  be  well,  for  any 
that  are  wilHng,  to  sign  some  articles  of  agreement  before 
God  calls  me  hence  ?    Suppose  something  like  these : 

"  'We,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  being  thoroughly 
convinced  of  the  necessity  of  a  close  union  between  those 
whom  God  is  pleased  to  use  as  instruments  in  this  glorious 
work,  in  order  to  preserve  this  union  between  ourselves,  are 
resolved,  God  being  our  helper:  (i)  Zi?  devote  ourselves  en- 
tirely to  God;  denying  ourselves,  taking  up  our  cross  daily, 
steadily  aiming  at  one  thing,  to  save  our  own  souls,  and 
them  that  hear  us.  (2)  To  preach  the  old  Methodist  doc- 
trines, and  no  other,  contained  in  the  minutes  of  the  Confer- 
ences. (3)  To  observe  and  enforce  the  whole  Methodist 
discipline,  laid  down  in  the  said  minutes.'  "  * 

In  view  of  the  obligation  to  preach  the  doctrines  and  to 
enforce  the  discipline  contained  in  the  Minutes,  the  preach- 
ers present  wisely  suggested  to  Mr.  Wesley  a  publication 
embodjang  Methodist  doctrine  and  discipHne,  as  contained 
in  the  Minutes  of  the  twenty-six  yearly  Conferences,  to  be 
sent  to  every  "  assistant,"  or  preacher  in  charge  of  a  circuit, 
to  be  by  him  communicated  to  all  the  "  helpers,"  or  junior 
preachers,  in  his  work.  In  1753  Mr.  Wesley  had  issued  the 
first  collection  of  this  sort,  made  up  of  extracts  from  the 
Minutes  to  date.  This  is  known  as  the  first  edition  of  "  The 
Large  Minutes."  A  second  edition,  containing  the  added 
legislation  of  the  succeeding  ten  years,  was  issued  in  1763.! 
This  request  of  the  preachers  at  the  Leeds  Conference  of 

♦Minutes,  Ed.  1812,  I.  87-89;  Ed.  1862,  87-89;  Tyerman,  III.  49,  50. 
I Tjerman,  II.  474-479,  gives  all  the  differences  between  the  edition  of 
1753  and  that  of  1763  of  "The  Large  Minvites." 


28 


English  Methodism  to  1784.. 


1769  Mr.  Wesley  satisfied  the  following  year  when  he  issued 
the  third  edition  of  "  The  Large  Minutes,"  an  octavo  pam- 
phlet of  sixty  pages,  entitled  "  Minutes  of  Several  Conversa- 
tions between  the  Rev.  Messrs.  John  and  Charles  Wesley 
and  Others,"  which  included  the  minutes  of  Conferences 
to  1770.    Editions  were  also  issued  in  1772,  1780,  and  1789.* 

This  plan  of  Mr.  Wesley's  for  the  perpetuity  of  Metho- 
dism, embodying  as  it  did  a  permanent  doctrinal  and  disci- 
plinary basis  of  union,  as  well  as  a  central  committee  of  con- 
trol, was  ordered  inserted  in  the  Minutes,  after  having  re- 
ceived, as  Dr.  Whitehead  thinks,  the  signatures  of  many  of 
the  preachers  at  the  Conference  of  1769.  Mr.  Wesley  held 
the  plan  in  suspense  for  some  years,  but  brought  it  forward 
again  at  the  Conferences  of  1773,  i774»  and  1775,  when  it 
received  the  signatures  of  all  the  preachers  present  at  these 
sessions,  more  than  one  hundred  in  all.f 

Thus  for  six  years  Mr.  Wesley's  deliberations  led  him  to 
abide  by  this  plan  as  the  best  he  could  devise.  Dr.  White- 
head more  than  hints  that  since  the  plan  provided  simply  for 
the  perpetual  union  of  Methodism  on  the  original  basis, 
namely,  not  as  a  dissenting  body,  but  as  a  society  with  un- 
ordained  lay  preachers,  dependent  upon  the  Church  of  En- 
gland and  her  friendly  clergy  for  the  sacraments,  the  more 
ambitious  Wesleyan  leaders  were  not  satisfied  to  be  thus 
bound  after  Mr.  Wesley's  death.  "Some  years  afterwards, 
[after  1769]"  says  the  Doctor,  "the  mystery  of  innova- 
tions began  to  work  secretly  in  the  minds  of  several  of  the 
preachers  who  hoped  to  exalt  themselves  above  all  that  had 
been  known  before  among  them.  They  knew  Mr.  Wesley 
did,  and  would  let,  or  hinder,  till  he  was  taken  out  of  the 
way:  they  had  influence  enough,  however,  to  prevail  upon 
him  to  relinquish  the  present  plan,  and  leave  the  mode 
of  union  among  the  preachers  after  his  death,  to  their 
own    deliberations. "t    The   plan  was   relinquished;  but 


♦Minutes,  1862,  I.  443-675,  contain  the  six  editions  in  parallel  columns. 
I  Minutes,  1812,  I.  110;  115,  116;  121,  122;  Stevens,  Hist.  Meth.,  I.  442. 
J  Whitehead,  Life  of  Wesley,  II.  193.    Compare  the  footnotes  on  p.  192. 


IV/io  Shall  Inherit  Wesley's  Powers? 


29 


Dr.  Whitehead's  testimony  as  to  how,  when,  and  why  is 
doubtful.    It  lacked  the  legal  features  of  the  Deed. 

Stevens  is  content  to  dismiss  this  proposal  with  the  re- 
mark that  it  was  superseded  by  the  final  plan  of  Wesley's 
Deed  of  Declaration  recorded  in  Chancery.*  So  it  was. 
But  this  Deed  was  not  drawn  until  1784,  nine  years  after  the 
original  plan  was  last  offered  for  signatures  in  the  Confer- 
ence. We  are  thus  thrown  back  upon  Whitehead's  sur- 
mises and  suspicious  allegations,  for  a  possible  explanation. 
Dr.  Neely  imagines  "  that  perhaps  it  had  some  applica- 
tion to  Wesley's  desire  that  the  Rev.  John  Fletcher,  vicar 
of  Madeley,  should  be  his  active  assistant  during  his  old 
age,  and  his  probable  successor  in  the  Methodist  leadership 
after  his  decease,"  but  finally  concludes  that  "  the  points  do 
not  fit."  t 

But  to  the  Rev.  Jean  Guillaume  de  la  Flechiere — John 
William  Fletcher — saint  and  scholar,  pietist  and  polemic, 
(born  1729,  died  1785,  six  years  before  Wesley)  and  Wes- 
ley's other  scheme  of  a  personal  successor,  we  must  now 
turn  our  attention.  Whitehead,  after  mentioning  in  lan- 
guage none  too  friendly  that  Wesley  by  general  suffrage  had 
acted  as  "  dictator,"  continues:  "  He  had  often  found  that 
all  his  authority  was  barely  sufficient  to  preserve  peace,  and 
the  mere  external  appearance  of  unanimity,  and  therefore 
concluded,  that  if  his  authority  were  to  cease,  or  not  to  be 
transferred  to  another  at  his  death,  the  preachers  and  peo- 
ple would  fall  into  confusion. "t  Hence  the  letter  following, 
which  Wesley  wrote  to  Fletcher  in  January,  1773,  from 
Shoreham,  whither  he  had  doubtless  gone  to  take  counsel 
with  the  venerable  Perronet: 

'■'■Dear  Sir:  What  an  amazing  work  has  God  wrought  in 
these  kingdoms  in  less  than  forty  years !  And  it  not  only 
continues,  but  increases  throughout  England,  Scotland,  and 
Ireland;  nay,  it  has  lately  spread  into  New  York,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Virginia,  Maryland,  and  CaroHna.    But  the  wise 

*  Hist,  of  Meth.,  I.  442.  t^^'eely,  Gov.  Conf.  in  Meth.,  p.  26. 

J  Whitehead,  Life,  II.  217. 


30 


English  Methodism  to  178^. 


men  of  the  world  say:  '  When  Mr.  Wesley  drops,  then  all 
this  is  at  an  end.'  And  so  it  surely  will,  unless,  before  God 
calls  him  hence,  one  is  found  to  stand  in  his  place.  For 

'OvK  ayaOov  iroXvKOLpavir)'  ets  KOipavos  taro).* 

I  see  more  and  more,  unless  there  be  one  Ttpoecrcog,  the  work 
can  never  be  carried  on.  The  body  of  the  preachers  are 
not  united,  nor  will  any  part  of  them  submit  to  the  rest;  so 
that  there  must  be  one  to  preside  over  all,  or  the  work  will 
indeed  come  to  an  end. 

"  But  who  is  sufficient  for  these  things?  Qualified  to 
preside  both  over  the  preachers  and  people  ?  He  must  be  a 
man  of  faith  and  love,  and  one  that  has  a  single  eye  to  the 
advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  must  have  a 
clear  understanding;  a  knowledge  of  men  and  things,  par- 
ticularly of  the  Methodist  doctrine  and  discipUne;  a  ready 
utterance;  diligence  and  activity;  with  a  tolerable  share  of 
health.  There  must  be  added  to  these,  favor  with  the  peo- 
ple, with  the  Methodists  in  general.  For  unless  God  turn 
their  eyes  and  their  hearts  toward  him,  he  will  be  quite  in- 
capable of  the  work.  He  must  likewise  have  some  degree 
of  learning;  because  there  are  many  adversaries,  learned  as 
well  as  unlearned,  whose  mouths  must  be  stopped.  But  this 
cannot  be  done  unless  he  be  able  to  meet  them  on  their 
own  ground. 

"  But  has  God  provided  one  so  qualified?  Who  is  he? 
Thou  art  the  man !  God  has  given  you  a  measure  of  loving 
faith,  and  a  single  eye  to  his  glory.  He  has  given  you  some 
knowledge  of  men  and  things,  particularly  of  the  whole  plan 
of  Methodism.  You  are  blessed  with  some  health,  activity, 
and  diligence,  together  with  a  degree  of  learning.  And  to 
all  these  he  has  lately  added,  by  a  way  none  could  have  fore- 
seen, favor  both  with  the  preachers  and  the  whole  people. 
Come  out,  in  the  name  of  God!  Come  to  the  help  of  the 
Lord  against  the  mighty!  Come,  while  I  am  alive  and  ca- 
pable of  labor — 


*It  is  not  good  that  supreme  power  should  be  lodged  in  many  hands: 
let  there  be  one  governor. 


W/io  Shall  Inherit  Wesley's  Power sf 


31 


Dum  superest  Lachesi  quod  torqueat,  et  pedibus  me 
Porto  meis,  nuUo  dextram  subeunte  bacillc'  * 

"  Come,  while  I  am  able,  God  assisting,  to  build  you  up 
in  the  faith,  to  ripen  your  gifts,  and  to  introduce  you  to  the 
people.  Kil  tanti.  What  possible  employment  can  you 
have  which  is  of  so  great  importance  ? 

"  But  you  will  naturally  say:  '  I  am  not  equal  to  the  task ; 
I  have  neither  grace  nor  gifts  for  such  an  employment.' 
You  say  true;  it  is  certain  3'Ou  have  not — and  who  has? 
But  do  you  not  know  Him  who  is  able  to  give  them  ?  Per- 
haps not  at  once;  but  rather  day  by  day:  as  each  is,  so  shall 
your  strength  be.  '  But  this  implies,'  you  may  say,  '  a  thou- 
sand crosses,  such  as  I  feel  I  am  not  able  to  bear.' 

"You  are  not  able  to  bear  them  7io%v,  and  they  are  not 
now  come.  Whenever  they  do  come,  will  He  not  send 
them  in  due  number,  weight,  and  measure?  And  will  they 
not  all  be  for  your  profit,  that  you  may  be  a  partaker  of  His 
holiness  ? 

"Without  conferring,  therefore,  with  flesh  and  blood, 
come  and  strengthen  the  hands,  comfort  the  heart,  and  share 
the  labors  of  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

"  John  Wesley."  t 

"  This  was  a  momentous  proposal,"  adds  Tyerman,  and 
asks,  "  Why  was  it  not  made  to  Wesley's  brother?  "  This 
seems  to  have  been  Fletcher's  thought,  also,  but  such  co- 
nundrums it  is  hardly  the  province  of  history  to  answer. 
Dr.  Whitehead  indulges  in  some  uncharitable  and  unfound- 
ed surmises  as  to  the  grounds  of  Fletcher's  refusal:  he  does 
not  appear  to  have  known  that  Fletcher  ever  sent  the  reply 
which  is  here  appended : 

"  Madeley,  6th  February,  1773. 
Reverend  and  Dear  Sir :  I  hope  the  Lord,  who  has  so 
wonderfully  stood  by  you  hitherto,  will  preserve  you  to  see 

*  While  Lachesis  has  some  thread  of  life  to  spin,  and  I  walk  on  my  own 
feet  without  the  help  of  a  staff.    (Juvenal,  Sat.  iii.) 

t  Whitehead's  Life  of  Wesley,  IL  217-219;  Tyerman,  Life  and  Times, 
IIL  147,  148;  Smith,  Hist,  of  Wesleyan  Meth.,  I.  487-489. 


32 


English  Methodism  to  1784.. 


many  of  your  sheep,  and  me  among  the  rest,  enter  into  rest. 
Should  Providence  call  you  Jirst,  I  shall  do  my  best,  by  the 
Lord's  assistance,  to  help  your  brother  to  gather  the  wreck 
and  keep  together  those  who  are  not  absolutely  bent  upon 
throwing  away  the  Methodist  doctrine  or  discipline.  Every 
little  help  will  then  be  necessary,  and  I  hope  I  shall  not  be 
backward  to  throw  in  my  mite. 

"  In  the  meantime,  you  stand  sometimes  in  need  of  an 
assistant  to  serve  tables  and  occasionally  to  fill  up  a  gap. 
Providence  visibly  appointed  me  to  that  oflice  many  years 
ago ;  and  though  it  no  less  evidently  called  me  hither,  yet  I 
have  not  been  without  doubt,  especially  for  some  years  past, 
whether  it  would  not  be  expedient  that  I  should  resume  my 
place  as  your  deacon ;  not  with  any  view  of  presiding  over 
the  Methodists  after  you  (God  knows!),  but  to  save  you  a 
little  in  your  old  age,  and  be  in  the  way  of  receiving,  and 
perhaps  of  doing,  more  good.  I  have  sometimes  considered 
how  shameful  it  was  that  no  clergyman  should  join  you  to 
keep  in  the  Church  the  work  which  the  Lord  had  enabled 
you  to  carry  on  therein;  and,  as  the  little  estate  I  have  in 
my  native  country  is  sufficient  for  my  maintenance,  I  have 
thought  I  would  one  day  or  other  offer  you  and  the  Metho- 
dists my  free  services. 

"  While  my  love  of  retirement,  and  my  dread  of  appear- 
ing upon  a  higher  stage  than  that  I  stand  upon  here,  make 
me  linger,  I  was  providentially  called  to  do  something  in 
Lady  Huntingdon's  plan;  but  being  shut  out  there,  it  ap- 
pears to  me  that  I  am  again  called  to  my  first  work. 

"Nevertheless,  I  would  not  leave  this  place  without  a 
fuller  persuasion  that  the  time  is  quite  come.  Not  that  God 
uses  me  much  now  among  my  parishioners,  but  because  I 
have  not  sufficiently  cleared  my  conscience  from  the  blood 
of  all  men,  especially  with  regard  to  ferreting  out  the  poor, 
and  expostulating  with  the  rich,  who  make  it  their  business 
to  fly  from  me.  In  the  meantime,  it  shall  be  my  employ- 
ment to  beg  the  Lord  to  give  me  light,  and  make  me  willing 
to  go  anywhere  or  nowhere,  to  be  anything  or  nothing. 


fV/io  Shall  Inherit  Wesley's  Powers? 


33 


♦*  I  have  laid  my  pen  aside  for  some  time;  nevertheless,  I 
resumed  it  last  week,  at  your  brother's  request,  to  go  on 
with  my  treatise  on  Christian  perfection.  I  have  made  some 
alterations  in  the  sheets  you  have  seen,  and  hope  to  have  a 
few  more  ready  for  your  correction,  against  the  time  you 
come  this  way.  How  deep  is  the  subject!  What  need 
have  I  of  the  Spirit,  to  search  the  deep  things  of  God ! 
Help  me  by  your  prayers,  till  you  can  help  me  by  word  of 
mouth. 

"  I  am,  reverend  and  dear  sir,  your  willing,  though  un- 
profitable, servant  in  the  gospel, 

"John  Fletcher." * 
In  July  following  Wesley  renewed  his  invitation  in  a  per- 
sonal interview  with  Fletcher  and  soon  after  wrote  him  as 
follows : 

"  Lewisham,  July  21,  1773. 
'^'■Dear  Sir:  It  was  a  great  satisfaction  to  me  that  I  had 
the  opportunity,  which  I  so  long  desired,  of  spending  a  little 
time  with  you;  and  I  really  think  it  would  answer  many 
gracious  designs  of  Providence  were  we  to  spend  a  little 
more  time  together.  It  might  be  of  great  advantage,  both 
to  ourselves  and  the  people,  who  may  otherwise  soon  be  as 
sheep  without  a  shepherd.  You  say,  indeed,  'whenever  it 
pleases  God  to  call  me  away,  you  will  do  all  you  can  to  help 
them.'  But  will  it  not  then  be  too  late?  You  may  then  ex- 
pect grievous  wolves  to  break  in  on  every  side,  and  many 
to  arise  from  among  themselves  speaking  perverse  things. 
Both  the  one  and  the  other  stand  in  awe  of  me,  and  do  not 
care  to  encounter  me ;  so  that  I  am  able,  whether  they  will 
or  no,  to  deliver  the  flock  into  your  hands.  But  no  one 
else  is;  and  it  seems  this  is  the  very  time  when  it  may  be 
done  with  the  least  difficulty.  Just  now  the  minds  of  the 
people  in  general  are,  on  account  of  the  Checks,  greatly 
prejudiced  in  your  favor.  Should  we  not  discern  the  prov- 
idential time?  Should  we  stay  till  the  impression  is  worn 
away?    Just  now  we  have  an  opportunity  of  breaking  the 

♦Tyerman,  Life  and  Times,  III.  149;  quoted  from  Moore's  Life,  IL  259. 
3 


34 


English  Methodism  to  1784.. 


ice,  of  making  a  little  trial.  Mr.  Richardson  is  desirous  of 
making  an  exchange  with  you,  and  spending  two  or  three 
weeks  at  Madeley.  This  might  be  done  either  now  or  in 
October,  when  I  hope  to  return  from  Bristol;  and  until 
something  of  this  kind  is  done  you  will  not  have  that  otoi^yyi 
for  the  people  which  alone  can  make  your  labor  light  in 
spending  and  being  spent  for  them.  Methinks  'tis  pity  we 
should  lose  any  time ;  for  what  a  vapor  is  life  ! 

"  I  am,  dear  sir,  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

"John  Wesley."  * 

Wesley  once  more,  in  January,  1776,  invited  Fletcher  to 
accompany  him  on  his  tours  through  England  and  Scotland, 
but,  under  date  of  January  9,  Fletcher  makes  a  decisive  an- 
swer: "  I  received  last  night  the  favor  of  yours  from  Bristol. 
My  grand  desire  is  to  be  just  what  the  Lord  would  have  me 
be.  I  could,  if  you  wanted  a  traveling  assistant,  accompa- 
ny you,  as  my  little  strength  would  admit,  in  some  of  your 
excursions;  but  your  recommending  me  to  the  societies,  as 
one  who  might  succeed  you,  (should  the  Lord  call  you  hence 
before  me,)  is  a  step  to  which  I  could  by  no  means  consent. 
It  would  make  me  take  my  horse  and  gallop  away.  Be- 
sides, such  a  step  would,  at  this  juncture,  be,  I  think,  pe- 
culiarly improper,  and  would  cast  upon  my  vindication  of 
your  minutes  such  an  odium  as  the  Calvinists  have  endeav- 
ored to  cast  upon  your  'Address.'  It  would  make  people 
suspect,  that  what  I  have  done  for  truth  and  conscience 
sake,  I  have  done  with  a  view  of  being,  what  Mr.  Toplady 
calls,  '  the  bishop  of  Moorfields.'  We  ought  to  give  as  little 
hold  to  the  evil  surmising  and  rash  judgments  of  our  oppo- 
nents as  may  be.  If,  nevertheless.  Providence  throws  in 
your  way  a  clergyman  wiUing  to  assist  us,  it  would  be  well 
to  fall  in  with  that  circumstance."  t 

Thus  this  project  of  designating  a  personal  successor  who 
should  discharge,  at  least  in  some  measure,  Mr.  Wesley's 
functions,  came  to  naught.  The  plan  of  union  on  the  basis 
of  the  "  old  Methodist  doctrine  "  and  the  "  whole  Methodist 


♦Tyerman,  III.  150.    jSee  the  whole  letter  in  Tyerman,  III.  212,  213. 


JVAo  Shall  Inherit  Wesley's  Powers? 


35 


discipline  "  was  presented  for  signatures  for  the  last  time,  as 
we  have  seen,  at  the  Conference  of  1775.  For  the  reasons, 
possibly,  assigned  by  Dr.  Whitehead,  or  for  others  now  un- 
known, it  seems  to  have  been  abandoned.  It  was  excellent 
as  far  as  it  went,  and  Mr.  Wesley  at  this  time  probably  re- 
garded this  conferential  compact  as  binding  until  something 
better  could  be  provided.  In  March,  1776,  Mr.  Wesley 
was  seventy-three  years  old:  it  was  high  time  that  adequate 
provision  for  the  perpetuity  of  Methodism  were  made. 
Both  of  his  schemes,  whether  they  were  intended  to  be  in- 
dependent or  in  some  way  to  be  combined,  as  might  have 
very  well  been  done,  had  so  far  issued  in  no  sufficient  and 
final  relief.  An  efficient  personal  superintendent,  to  whom 
preachers  and  people  would  yield  a  willing  obedience,  had 
not  been  secured;  and  the  Conference  had  not  been  organ- 
ized into  a  center  of  unity  and  government. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THOMAS  COKE  AND  THE  DEED  OF  DECLARATION. 

BOUT  the  time  that  Fletcher's  health,  never  robust,  be- 


stead of  his  ardently  desired  and  persistently  designated  suc- 
cessor, that  remarkable  young  man  whom  he  fondly  regarded 
as  his  "right  hand  " — the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.  (born 
1747,  died  1814),  the  first  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  America,  and  Mr.  Wesley's  chosen  and  ac- 
credited deputy  in  its  organization.  Forty-four  years  the 
junior  of  his  chief,  active,  intelligent,  devoted,  vigilant, 
pious,  he  seemed  at  last  the  man  for  the  hour. 

Tuesday,  Aug.  19,  1777,  Mr.  Wesley  records  in  his 
Journal:  "  I  went  forward  to  Taunton  with  Dr.  Coke  who, 
being  dismissed  from  his  curacy,  has  bid  adieu  to  his  hon- 
orable name,  and  determined  to  cast  in  his  lot  with  us."  * 
The  little  Doctor — for  he  was  small  of  stature,  like  Wesley 
himself — attended  the  Methodist  Conference  this  year  at 
Bristol,  but,  for  unknown  reasons  (conjectured,  however, 
by  Samuel  Drew,  his  biographer,  to  be  connected  with  Mr. 
Wesley's  supposed  desire  to  retain  him  near  his  own  person, 
lest  the  possible  tender  of  preferment  in  the  Establishment 
might  entice  him  away  from  the  Methodists  before  he  was 
irrevocably  committed  to  their  cause  )t  his  name  does  not 
appear  in  the  Minutes  until  1778,  when  he  was  appointed  to 
labor  in  London,  where  he  became  superintendent  of  the 
circuit  in  1780,  about  which  time  he  also  began  to  alternate 
with  Mr.  Wesley  in  annual  visits  to  Ireland.  In  1782  he 
was  deputed  to  preside  at  the  first  Irish  Conference,  held  in 


Providence  sent  to  Mr.  Wesley,  in- 


*  Wesley's  Journal,  Amer.  Ed.,  II.  477. 
f  Drew,  Life  of  Coke,  Amer.  Ed.,  p.  40. 

(36) 


Thomas  Coke  and  the  Deed  of  Declaration. 


37 


the  city  of  Dublin,*  as  subsequently,  in  1784,  he  presided  in 
the  great  American  organizing  Conference,  commonly,  but 
mistakenly,  called  the  first  General,  at  Baltimore. 

At  the  English  Conference  of  1782,  Coke  took  the  most 
prominent  part  in  steps  toward  the  final  and  legal  settlement 
of  the  title-deeds  of  the  Methodist  chapels,  about  which 
considerable  difficulties,  legal  and  other,  to  be  more  partic- 
ularly described  hereafter,  had  arisen. 

At  a  very  early  period,  Wesley  pubHshed  a  model  deed 
for  the  satisfactory  settlement  of  chapels,  the  chief  provisions 
of  which  were  these  two,  namely:  (i)  The  trustees  were  to 
permit  Wesley  himself  and  his  appointees  from  the  confer- 
ence to  have  the  free  and  undisturbed  use  of  such  chapels,  for 
the  purpose  of  preaching  God's  holy  word  therein — on  Wes- 
ley's decease  his  rights  were  to  descend  to  his  brother  Charles, 
and  in  case  of  the  latter's  death,  to  the  Rev.  William  Grim- 
shaw  (a  Yorkshire  clergyman  and  graduate  of  Cambridge, 
who  united  with  the  Methodists  in  1745,  but  died  as  early  as 
1763);  (2)  After  the  decease  of  these  three  clergymen — 
the  Wesleys  and  Grimshaw — the  chapels  were  to  be  held  in 
trust  for  the  sole  use  of  the  persons  appointed  at  the  Yearly 
Conference  of  the  People  called  Methodists,  provided  that 
these  appointees  preached  no  other  doctrines  than  those 
contained  in  Wesley's  Notes  on  the  New  Testament  and  in 
his  four  volumes  of  Sermons. t 

The  origin  and  history  of  this  deed  are  thus  given  by  Mr. 
Wesley  himself,  under  date  of  Jan.  3,  1783: 

"4.  I  built  the  first  Methodist  preaching  house,  so  called, 
at  Bristol,  in  the  year' 1739.  And  knowing  no  better,  I  suf- 
fered the  deed  of  trust  to  be  drawn  up  in  the  Presbyterian 
form.  But  Mr.  Whitefield  hearing  of  it,  wrote  me  a  warm 
letter,  asking,  'Do  you  consider  what  you  do?  If  the 
trustees  are  to  name  the  preachers,  they  may  exclude  even 
you  from  preaching  in  the  house  you  have  built !  Pray  let 
this  deed  be  immediately  canceled.'  To  this  the  trustees 
readily  agreed.    Afterward  I  built  the  preaching  houses  in 


*Drew,  Life  of  Coke,  pp.  49,  50.    |Tyerman,  Life  and  Times,  III.  417. 


38 


English  Methodism  to  1784. 


Kingswood,  and  at  Newcastle-upon-Tyne.  But  none  beside 
myself  had  any  right  to  appoint  the  preachers  in  them. 

"5.  About  this  time  a  preaching  house  was  built  at  Bir- 
stal,  by  contributions  and  collections.  And  John  Nelson, 
knowing  no  better,  suffered  a  deed  to  be  drawn  in  the  Pres- 
byterian form,  giving  twelve  or  thirteen  persons  power  not 
only  of  placing,  but  even  of  displacing,  the  preachers  at 
their  pleasure.  Had  Mr.  Whitefield  or  I  known  this,  we 
should  have  insisted  on  its  either  being  canceled,  like  that 
at  Bristol,  or  so  altered  as  to  insure  the  application  of  the 
house  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  built,  without  giving 
so  dangerous  a  power  to  any  trustees  whatever. 

"  6.  But  a  considerable  difficulty  still  remained.  As  the 
houses  at  Bristol,  Kingswood,  and  Newcastle  were  my  prop- 
erty, a  friend  reminded  me,  that  they  were  all  liable  to  de- 
scend to  my  heirs.  (Pray  let  those  consider  this,  who  are 
so  fond  of  having  preaching  houses  vested  in  them  and 
their  heirs  forever ! )  I  was  struck,  and  immediately  pro- 
cured a  form  to  be  drawn  up  by  three  of  the  most  eminent 
counselors  in  London,  whereby  not  only  these  houses,  but 
all  the  Methodist  houses  hereafter  to  be  built,  might  be  set- 
tled on  such  a  plan,  as  would  secure  them,  so  far  as  human 
prudence  could,  from  the  heirs  of  the  proprietors,  for  the 
purpose  originally  intended."  * 

In  1784,  the  date  of  the  Deed  of  Declaration,  there  were 
according  to  Myles  (Chronological  History)  three  hundred 
and  fifty-nine  Methodist  chapels  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
most  of  which,  it  may  be  presumed,  were  settled  according 
to  the  provisions  of  this  "  model  deed."t  Mr.  Pawson  de- 
clares,t  that  from  the  year  1750  all  Methodist  chapels  were 
held  according  to  the  conditions  of  this  deed;  but  there 
were  certainly  some  exceptions,  as  Nelson's  original  Pres- 
byterian deed  to  the  Birstal  chapel,  to  which  Mr.  Wesley 
refers  above,  and  about  which  trouble  arose,  was  drawn  and 

*  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  ed.,  VII.  326,  327,  "Case  of  Birstal  House." 
fTyerman,  III.  417,  418. 

J  MS.  memoir  of  Dr.  Wiiitehead;  see  Tyerman,  III.  420. 


Thomas  Coke  and  the  Deed  of  Declaration. 


39 


dated  in  1751.  Still  with  the  model  deed  itself  there  was 
dissatisfaction  among  the  "  wisest  and  best  preachers,"  and 
at  the  Conference  of  1767  the  question  was  raised,  "Are 
our  preaching  houses  settled  in  our  form  safe?  Should  we 
not  have  the  opinion  of  a  counsel?"  To  these  inquiries 
Mr.  Wesley  replied:  "I  think  not.  i.  Because  the  form 
was  drawn  up  by  three  eminent  counselors.  But,  2.  It  is 
the  way  of  every  counsel  to  blame  what  another  counsel  has 
done ;  but  you  cannot  at  all  infer  that  they  think  it  wrong  be- 
cause they  say  so.  3.  If  they  did  in  reality  think  it  wrong, 
that  would  not  prove  that  it  was  so.  4.  If  there  was  (which  I 
do  not  believe)  some  defect  therein,  who  would  go  to  law 
with  the  body  of  Methodists?  5.  And  if  they  did,  would 
any  court  in  England  put  them  out  of  possession,  especially 
when  the  intent  of  the  deed  is  plain  and  undeniable."* 

But  this  reasoning,  plausible  as  it  was,  did  not  long  satis- 
fy the  preachers,  especially  Messrs.  Hampson  and  Oddie, 
who,  according  to  Pawson,  "were  men  of  remarkably  deep 
understanding  and  sound  judgment."  Wesley  began  to 
yield,  and  various  schemes  were  proposed.  One  was  to  con- 
solidate all  the  chapels  of  Methodism  into  a  general  trust. 
Another  was  to  have  all  the  deeds  brought  to  London  and 
deposited  in  a  strong  box  provided  for  the  purpose:  many 
were  actually  sent  and,  in  consequence,  some  were  lost.f 

In  1782  the  chapel  at  Birstal  was  rebuilt  or  enlarged  and 
a  new  deed,  for  various  reasons,  detailed  by  Tyerman,  was 
prepared,  "which,"  says  Wesley,  "  like  the  old  [of  1751], 
gave  a  few  persons  the  power  ol  placing  and  displacing  the 
preachers  at  their  pleasure.  This  was  brought  and  read  to 
me  at  Daw  Green.  As  soon  as  ever  I  heard  it,  I  vehe- 
mently objected  to  it,  and  positively  refused  to  sign  it.  .  .  . 
But  in  the  evening  several  persons  came  again,  and  im- 
portunately urged  me  to  sign  it;  averring  that  it  was  the 
same  in  effect  with  the  old  deed,  and  the  old  deed  could  not 
be  altered.    Not  adverting  that  it  was  altered  in  the  new 

*  Tyerman,  III.  420;  Neelj,  Governing  Conference  in  Methodism,  p.  49. 
■fTyerman,  III.  420,  421. 


40 


English  Methodism  to  1784. 


one,  I,  at  length,  unwillingly  complied."*  This  new  deed 
was  dated  May  14,  1782,  and,  says  Tyerman,  "was  widely 
different  from  that  of  1751,  and,  as  the  vice-chancellor  ruled 
in  1854,  so  far  as  it  purported  to  vary  the  trusts  of  the  latter 
deed,  it  was  void  and  of  no  effect,  but  it  still  contained  the 
obnoxious  clause,  giving  power  to  other  parties  than  Wes- 
-  ley's  Conference  to  appoint  the  preachers."  f 

Wesley,  now  an  old  man  nearly  eighty,  had  committed  a 
blunder,  shared  in,  however,  by  others.  There  was  no  pre- 
dicting whereunto  this  thing  might  grow.  The  whole  mat- 
ter came  up  for  review  and  settlement  at  the  Conference  of 
1782,  whose  deliverance  was  explicit  and  decisive:  "If  the 
trustees  still  refuse  to  settle  it  on  the  Methodist  plan ;  if  they 
still  insist  that  they  will  have  the  right  of  placing  and  displac- 
ing the  preachers  at  their  pleasure, — then,  First,  let  a  plain 
statement  of  the  case  be  drawn  up.  Secondly,  let  a  collec- 
tion be  made  throughout  all  England  in  order  to  purchase 
ground,  and  build  another  preaching  house  as  near  the  pres- 
ent as  may  be.'"  X 

The  execution  of  this  mandate  of  Conference  was  intrust- 
ed to  Dr.  Coke,  who  was  at  the  same  time  directed  to  travel 
throughout  England  to  see  that  all  the  chapels  were  settled 
according  to  the  Conference  plan.  He  promptly  issued  an 
"Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Birstal,"  etc.,  in  which,  by 
way  of  a  "  plain  statement,"  he  narrates  the  history  of  their 
chapel  deed  and  notifies  them  that  he  had  been  delegated  to 
execute  the  Conference  minute.  It  was  a  vital  issue  and 
a  critical  time.  Methodism  had  reached  the  forks  of  the 
road;  Congregationalism  or  connectionalism,  if  not  the  per- 
petuity of  Methodism  itself,  hung  upon  the  issue.  Wesley 
wrote  to  Bradford,  "Birstal  is  a  leading  case,  the  first  of 
an  avowed  violation  of  our  plan ;  therefore  the  point  must 
be  carried  for  the  Methodist  preachers  now  or  never,  and 
I  alone  can  carry  it,  which  I  will,  God  being  my  help- 
er."    In  the  paper  on  the  Birstal  House  already  cited. 


»  W^esley's  Works,  VII.  327.  fLife  and  Times,  III.  374,  375. 

f  Wesley's  M^orks,  VII.  327. 


Thomas  Coke  and  the  Deed  of  Declaration.  41 


issued  January  3,  1783,  he  lucidly  discloses  the  evils  which 
must  arise  from  allowing  such  powers  to  trustees. 

"  Itinerant  preaching  is  no  more.  When  the  trustees  in 
any  place  have  found  and  fixed  a  preacher  they  like,  the  ro- 
tation of  preachers  is  at  an  end;  at  least,  till  they  are  tired 
of  their  favorite  preacher,  and  so  turned  him  out.  While  he 
stays,  is  not  the  bridle  in  his  mouth?  How  dares  he  speak 
the  full  and  the  whole  truth,  since,  whenever  he  displeases 
the  trustees,  he  is  Hable  to  lose  his  bread?  How  much  less 
will  he  dare  to  put  a  trustee,  though  ever  so  ungodly,  out  of 
the  society!  ...  I  am  not  pleading  my  own  cause. 
.  .  .  I  am  pleading  for  Mr.  Taylor,  Mr.  Bradburn,  Mr. 
Benson,  and  for  every  other  traveling  preacher,  that  you 
may  be  as  free,  after  I  am  gone  hence,  as  you  are  now  I 
am  at  your  head;  that  you  may  never  be  Hable  to  be  turned 
out  of  any  or  all  of  our  houses  without  any  reason  given,  but 
that  so  is  the  pleasure  of  twenty  or  thirty  men.  .  .  . 
I  insist  upon  that  point,  and  let  everything  else  go.  No 
Methodist  trustees,  if  I  can  help  it,  shall,  after  my  death,  any 
more  than  while  I  live,  have  the  power  of  placing  and  dis- 
placing the  preachers."* 

The  final  result  of  this  agitation  was  that  a  new  deed  was 
made,  "giving  the  Conference  power  to  appoint  the  preach- 
ers; and  this  serious  hubbub, /rc  tem.,  subsided. "t  Dr. 
Coke  had  actually  purchased  ground  for  the  site  of  a  new 
chapel,  according  to  the  direction  of  the  Conference,  and 
one  reason  why  the  trustees  had  claimed  extraordinary  pow- 
ers was  because  of  a  debt  of  £350  on  their  new  chapel, 
which  they  had  advanced  the  money  to  pay.  Wesley  of- 
fered to  relieve  them  of  "their  debt  and  to  present  them  with 
the  ground  Coke  had  bought,  if  the}^  would  make  a  satisfac- 
tory deed,  which,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Maddocks, 
an  eminent  attorney,  they  were  competent  to  do.  Mr.  Jo- 
seph Charlesworth,  one  of  the  trustees,  in  finally  accepting 
Mr.  Wesley's  offer  on  behalf  of  his  brethren,  naively  wrote : 

♦Wesley's  Works,  VII.  328. 

•j-Tyerman,  III.  382.    See  the  whole  account,  III.  373-382. 


42 


English  Methodism  to  1784. 


"  We  cannot  but  acknowledge  your  goodness  in  promising 
the  land,  and  the  money  towards  paying  our  debt,  which 
will  be  two  very  convenient  articles  at  this  place,  as  we  are 
in  great  want  of  both." 

But  this  Birstal  trouble  of  1782  led  to  a  critical  inquiry 
into  the  merits  of  the  model  deed  itself,  which  had,  hitherto, 
been  adjudged  sufficient.  Was  the  "  Yearly  Conference  of 
the  People  called  Methodists"  such  a  body  as  possessed  a 
legal  existence?  Could  it  be  legally  described  and  legally 
identified?  Of  what  followed  Dr.  Coke  himself  tells  us  in 
his  "Address  to  the  Methodist  Society  in  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  on  the  settlement  of  the  Preaching  houses"  : 

"  In  the  Conference  held  in  the  year  1782  several  com- 
plaints were  made  in  respect  to  the  danger  in  which  we 
were  situated  from  the  want  of  specifying,  in  distinct  and 
legal  terms,  what  was  meant  by  the  term,  *  The  Conference 
of  the  People  called  Methodists.'  Indeed,  the  preachers 
seemed  universally  alarmed,  and  many  expressed  their  fears 
that  divisions  would  take  place  among  us  after  the  death  of 
Mr.  Wesley  on  this  account;  and  the  whole  body  of  preach- 
ers present  seemed  to  wish  that  some  methods  might  be 
taken  to  remove  this  danger,  which  appeared  to  be  pregnant 
with  evils  of  the  first  magnitude. 

"In  consequence  of  this  (the  subject  lying  heavy  on  my 
heart),  I  desired  Mr.  Clulow,  of  Chancery  Lane,  London, 
to  draw  up  such  a  case  as  I  judged  sufficient,  and  then  to 
present  it  to  that  very  eminent  counselor,  Mr.  Maddocks, 
for  his  opinion.  This  was  accordingly  done,  and  Mr.  Mad- 
docks  informed  us,  in  his  answer,  that  the  deeds  of  our 
preaching  houses  were  in  the  situation  we  dreaded;  that  the 
law  would  not  recognize  the  Conference  in  the  state  in 
which  it  stood  at  that  time,  and,  consequently,  that  there 
was  no  central  point  which  might  preserve  the  connection 
from  splitting  into  a  thousand  pieces  after  the  death  of  Mr. 
Wesley.  To  prevent  this,  he  observed  that  Mr.  Wesley 
should  enroll  a  deed  in  chancery,  which  deed  should  spec- 
ify the  persons  by  name  who  composed  the  Conference,  to- 


Thomas  Coke  and  the  Deed  of  Declaration. 


43 


gether  with  the  mode  of  succession  for  its  perpetuity;  and 
at  the  same  time  such  regulations  be  estabHshed  by  the  deed 
as  Mr.  Wesley  would  wish  the  Conference  should  be  gov- 
erned by,  after  his  death. 

"  This  opinion  of  Mr.  Maddocks  I  read  in  the  Conference 
of  1783.  The  whole  Conference  seemed  grateful  to  me  for 
procuring  the  opinion,  and  expressed  their  wishes  that  such 
a  deed  might  be  drawn  up  and  executed  by  Mr.  Wesley  as 
should  agree  with  the  advice  of  that  great  lawyer,  as  soon 
as  possible. 

"  Soon  after  the  Conference  was  ended,  Mr.  Wesley  au- 
thorized me  to  draw  up,  with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Clulow, 
all  the  leading  parts  of  a  deed  which  should  answer  the 
above  mentioned  purposes.  This  we  did  with  much  care, 
and  as  to  myself  I  can  truly  say  w^ith  fear  and  trembling, 
receiving  Mr.  Maddocks'  advice  in  respect  to  every  step  w^e 
took,  and  laying  the  whole  ultimately  at  Mr,  Wesley's  feet 
for  his  approbation ;  there  remained  now  nothing  but  to  in- 
sert the  names  of  those  who  were  to  constitute  the  Confer- 
ence. Mr.  Wesley  then  declared  that  he  would  limit  the 
number  to  one  hundred.  This  was  indeed  contrary  to  my 
very  humble  opinion,  which  was,  that  every  preacher,  in 
full  connection,  should  be  a  member  of  the  Conference; 
and  that  admission  into  full  connection  should  be  looked 
upon  as  admission  into  membership  with  the  Conference; 
and  I  still  believe  it  will  be  most  for  the  glory  of  God,  and 
the  peace  of  our  Zion,  that  the  members  of  the  Conference 
admit  the  other  preachers  who  are  in  full  connection,  and 
are  present  at  the  Conference  from  time  to  time,  to  a  full 
vote  on  all  occasions.  However,  of  course,  I  submitted  to 
the  superior  judgment  and  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley."  * 

This  was  the  origin  of,  and  this  Dr.  Coke's  agency  in  pro- 
curing, the  Magna  Charta  of  English  Methodism,  the  fa- 
mous Deed  of  Declaration,  dated  Feb.  28,  1784:  the  further 
consideration  of  which,  with  the  temporary  troubles  and  last- 
ing blessings  which  grew  out  of  it,  we  defer  to  our  account 


*  Drew,  Life  of  Coke,  pp.  47,  48. 


44  English  Methodism  to  1784.. 

of  "the  grand  climacteric  year."  The  Deed  has  stood  the 
test  of  litigation,  and  the  strain  and  stress  of  changing  times 
and  conditions:  it  remains  to  this  day  the  sufficient  instru- 
ment which  has  conserved  and  prospered  the  best  interests 
of  English  Methodism.  For  no  act  of  his  life,  perhaps,  was 
Mr.  Wesley  more  severely  or  more  generally  maligned :  no 
single  deed  of  his  has,  indeed,  proved  more  signally  bene- 
ficial to  his  British  followers.  Time  and  experience  have 
brought  a  complete  vindication  of  the  wisdom  of  the  inde- 
pendent course  which  he  pursued. 


BOOK  II. 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 

I.  Beginnings  of  Methodism  in  America. 
II.  The  First  American  Conference. 

III.  The  Annual  Conferences  to  the  Close  of  Ran- 

kin's Administration,  1777. 

IV.  Discord  and  Disunion:  1778-1780. 

V.  Peace  and  Prosperity:  1781-1784. 

VI.  The  Doctrinal  Standards  of  Ecumenical  Meth- 

odism. 

(45) 


CHAPTER  IV. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  METHODISM  IN  AMERICA. 

THE  Founder  of  Methodism  resided  in  America  as  a  cler- 
gyman of  the  Church  of  England,  with  Georgia  for  his 
parish,  from  Feb.  5,  1736,  to  Dec.  22,  1737.  With  his  broth- 
er Charles,  Benjamin  Ingham,  and  Charles  Delamotte,  (who 
was  his  constant  and  intimate  companion  throughout  the  pe- 
riod of  his  American  sojourn,)  he  landed  at  Savannah,  Ga., 
on  the  former  date,  having  set  sail  from  England,  Oct.  14, 
1735.  Charles  Wesley,  who  was  Oglethorpe's  secretary, 
and  Ingham,  set  out  with  the  General  to  found  Frederica; 
while  John  Wesley  and  Delamotte  remained  at  Savannah, 
lodging  for  the  time  with  Spangenberg,  Nitschmann,  and 
other  Moravians.  Wesley  began  his  ministry'  at  Savannah 
March  7,  1736,  with  a  sermon  on  i  Cor.  xiii.  3. 

Oxford  Methodism,  with  its  shining  excellencies  but  seri- 
ous defects,  "  misty,  austere,  gloomy,  and  forbidding,"  but 
"intensely  sincere,  earnest,  and  self-denying,"*  was  now 
a  thing  of  the  past:  its  leaders  had  dispersed  to  both  sides 
of  the  Atlantic,  and  apparently  its  work  was  done  and  its 
story  told.  The  Methodism  of  the  United  Society  was  not 
yet  born,  and  many  sad  American  experiences  must  yet 
qualify  its  founder  to  return  to  England  to  begin  that  great 
work. 

July  26,  1736,  after  spending  little  more  than  five  months 
in  Georgia,  Charles  Wesley  embarked  for  England:  in  a 
little  more  than  a  year  after  his  arrival  Ingham  also  returned 
home. 

In  German,  French,  and  Spanish,  as  well  as  in  English, 
Wesley  conducted  his  ministry  in  Georgia.  German  was 
his  ordinary  medium  of  intercourse  with  the  Moravians; 


*Tyerman,  I.  107. 


(47) 


48 


American  Methodism  to  178^. 


Spanish  he  learned  that  he  might  be  able  to  instruct  some 
Jews  among  his  parishioners;  and  we  learn  of  his  giving 
French  lessons  to  Miss  Hopkey,  afterwards  Mrs.  WilHam- 
son,  association  with  whom  was  the  source  of  many  trials 
and  tribulations  to  her  parish  priest,  needless  to  be  related 
here. 

On  a  return  trip  from  Frederica  to  Savannah  in  January, 
1737,  Wesley  perused  the  works  of  Macchiavelli,  and  since 
his  own  genius  for  government  and  methods  of  administration 
have  been  rather  freely  likened  to  those  of  Richelieu  and 
Loyola,  it  may  be  interesting  to  note  the  opinion  which  he 
formed  and  expressed,  "  that  if  all  the  other  doctrines  of 
devils,  which  have  been  committed  to  writing,  were  collected 
together  in  one  volume,  it  would  fall  short  of  this;  and  that 
should  a  prince  form  himself  by  this  book,  so  calmly  recom- 
mending hypocrisy,  treachery,  lying,  robbery,  oppression, 
adultery,  whoredom,  and  murder  of  all  kinds,  Domitian  or 
Nero  would  be  an  angel  of  light  compared  to  that  man." 

Wesley's  ideas  of  religion  at  this  period  are  freely  ex- 
pressed in  a  letter  written  in  March,  1737  :  "I  entirely  agree 
with  you,  that  religion  is  love,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost;  that,  as  it  is  the  happiest,  so  it  is  the  cheerfulest 
thing  in  the  world;  that  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  mo- 
roseness,  sourness,  severity,  and  indeed  with  whatever  is  not 
according  to  the  softness,  sweetness,  and  gentleness  of  Christ 
Jesus.  I  believe  it  is  equally  contrary  to  all  preciseness, 
stiffness,  affectation,  and  unnecessary  singularity.  I  allow, 
too,  that  prudence,  as  well  as  zeal,  is  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance in  the  Christian  life.  But  I  do  not  yet  see  any  possible 
case  wherein  trifling  conversation  can  be  an  instance  of  it. 
In  the  following  scriptures  I  take  all  such  to  be  flatly  for- 
bidden: Matt.  xii.  36;  Eph.  v.  4,  and  iv.  29;  Col.  iv.  6." 

Other  characteristics  of  the  later  Methodism,  now  latent 
in  Wesley's  mind  and  heart,  also  appear  in  the  following: 
"  When  I  first  landed  at  Savannah,  a  gentlewoman  said,  '  I 
assure  you,  sir,  you  will  see  as  well  dressed  a  congregation 
on  Sunday  as  most  you  have  seen  in  London.'    I  did  so; 


Beginnings  of  Methodism  in  America. 


49 


and  soon  after  I  took  occasion  to  expound  those  scriptures 
which  relate  to  dress;  and  all  the  time  that  I  afterward 
ministered  at  Savannah,  I  saw  neither  gold  in  the  church, 
nor  costly  apparel,  but  the  congregation  in  general  was  al- 
most constantly  clothed  in  plain  clean  Hnen  or  woolen." 

In  Savannah  his  manner  of  life,  especially  in  the  execu- 
tion of  his  clerical  duties,  excited  much  comment.  He  was, 
in  fact,  regarded  as  a  Romanist, — "(i)  Because  he  rigidly 
excluded  all  Dissenters  from  the  holy  communion,  until  they 
first  gave  up  their  faith  and  principles  and,  like  Richard 
Turner  and  his  sons,  submitted  to  be  rebaptized  by  him; 
(2)  because  Roman  Catholics  were  received  by  him  as 
saints;  (3)  because  he  endeavored  to  establish  and  enforce 
confession,  penance,  and  mortification  ;  mLxed  wine  with  wa- 
ter at  the  sacrament;  and  appointed  deaconesses  in  accord- 
ance with  what  he  called  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  He 
was,  in  point  of  fact,"  concludes  Tyerman,  "  a  Puseyite  a 
hundred  years  before  Dr.  Pusey  flourished."  * 

His  conduct  as  a  clergyman,  while  characterized  by  con- 
scientiousness, studiousness,  industrious  application  to  inces- 
sant parish  labors,  self-denial,  and  diligent  attention  to  pub- 
lic worship  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  was, 
indeed,  "  arrogant,  foolish,  offensive,  intolerant;  but  the 
petty  magisterial  court  at  Savannah  had  no  more  right  to  try 
him  for  his  high-church  practices  than  an  Old  Bailey  judge 
and  jury  have  to  try  the  half-fledged  papistical  rectors,  cu- 
rates, and  incumbents,  who  are  playing  such  fantastic  tricks 
in  the  Protestant  churches  of  old  England  at  the  present 
day."  t  But  the  Williamson  affair  finally  assumed  such  a 
shape  that  in  disgust  Wesley  was  driven  from  the  colony, 
sailing  Dec.  22,  1737,  from  Charleston,  a  town  which  he  had 
twice  before  visited,  once  in  July,  1736,  when  his  brother 
Charles  left  for  England,  and  again  in  April,  1737,  when  he 
preached  on  "  Whatsoever  is  born  of  God  overcometh  the 
world."  "  He  must  have  spoken  as  a  Methodist  preacher 
should,  for  after  service  a  man  of  education  and  character 


*Life  and  Times,  I.  147,  148.    f  Tyerman,  I.  159. 


50  American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


seriously  objected  to  the  sermon,  saying,  '  Why  if  this  be 
Christianity,  a  Christian  must  have  more  courage  than  Al- 
exander the  Great.'  "  * 

So  ended  Wesley's  labors  in  Georgia,  leaving  no  trace  on 
the  continental  American  Methodism  that  was  yet  to  be. 
More  humble  men,  under  his  inspiration  and  partly  under 
his  directions,  were  to  lay  its  enduring  foundations.  Wes- 
ley was  not  yet  ready  for  his  task. 

The  Rev.LukeTyerman,  a  laborious  and  exhaustive  biog- 
rapher, (to  w^hom  all  after-comers  must  confess  indebted- 
ness, )  but  not  always  the  most  discreet,  cannot  forbear  some 
wild  speculations  as  to  the  possible  consequences  of  Wesley's 
marriage  with  Miss  Sophy  Hopkey  and  his  settlement  in  Sa- 
vannah. Only  an  EngHshman,  totally  ignorant  of  the  char- 
acter, habits,  and  history  of  the  American  Indian  could  at 
this  lute  date  perpetrate  the  following:  "  Had  John  Wesley 
married  Sophia  Christiana  Hopkey,  the  probabiHty  is  that, 
instead  of  returning  to  England  and  beginning  the  greatest 
religious  revival  of  modern  times,  he  would  have  settled  in 
Georgia,  and,  like  another  Xavier,  have  spent  a  most  spirit- 
ual and  devoted  life  in  converting  Indian  and  other  kinds  of 
heathen.  The  results  of  such  a  life  might  have  been  glorious. 
Who  can  tell  what  might  have  been  its  influence  upon  the 
civilization  and  perpetuation  of  the  nobly  formed  aboriginal 
inhabitants  of  the  vast  American  continent  ?  Would  Ameri- 
ca, in  the  decline  of  the  nineteenth  century,  have  been  in- 
habited by  European  strangers  or  by  educated,  civilized, 
hard-working,  prosperous  descendants  of  the  wild  Indians 
of  the  woods?  " 

George  Whitefield,  as  we  have  seen  in  a  previous  chapter, 
sailed  for  America  the  day  before  Wesley's  arrival  in  En- 
gland, Feb.  I,  1788.  Seven  visits  in  all  did  this  flaming 
evangelist  make  to  America,  at  last  laying  down  his  body 
with  his  charge,  ceasing  at  once  to  work  and  live,  at  New- 

*McTyeire,  Sermons,  p.  52.  Wesley  also  at  this  time  issued  what  may 
be  styled  the  first  Methodist  hymn  book,  whose  title  page  bears  date,  Charles- 
ton, 1737. 


Beginnings  of  Methodism  in  America. 


51 


buryport,  Mass.,  Sept.  30,  1770,  where  his  remains  rest  to 
this  day.  His  last  sermon  was  preached  at  Exeter  the  day 
before  his  death,  when  he  held  a  vast  multitude  spell-bound 
for  two  hours.  The  fruits  of  his  evangelistic  tours  were 
shared  by  all  the  Churches,  Congregational,  Presbyterian, 
and  Baptist,  from  Massachusetts  to  Georgia.  In  Philadel- 
phia, New  York,  and  Boston  immense  and  delighted  audi- 
ences waited  on  his  ministry  and  great  awakenings  followed. 
Jonathan  Edwards  was  melted  to  tears  under  his  preaching, 
and  Benjamin  Frankhn  unconditionally  surrendered  to  the 
spell  of  his  matchless  oratory.  He  saw  on  one  occasion 
that  Whitefield  was  going  to  lift  a  collection,  but  though  he 
had  copper,  gold,  and  silver  in  his  pocket,  he  determined  to 
give  nothing.  But  as  the  sermon  progressed,  "  I  began  to 
soften,"  he  says,  "  and  concluded  to  give  the  copper.  An- 
other stroke  of  his  oratory  determined  me  to  give  the  silver; 
and  he  finished  so  admirably  that  I  emptied  my  pocket  whol- 
ly into  the  collector's  dish,  gold  and  all." 

In  England  eternity  only  will  reveal  the  work  accomplished 
by  Whitefield  and  his  "female  prelate,  the  grand,  stately, 
strong-minded,  godly,  and  self-sacrificing  Countess  of  Hunt- 
ingdon": in  America,  his  labors  were  incomparably  more 
extensive  and  fruitful  than  those  of  Wesley.  He  was  Amer- 
ican Methodism's  John  the  Baptist,  bringing  countless  multi- 
tudes to  repentance,  and,  as  a  voice  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness, preparing  the  way  of  the  Lord. 

Strawbridge,  Embury,  and  Webb — local  preachers  all; 
Boardman  and  Pilmoor — Wesley's  first  missionaries;  Ran- 
kin and  Asbury — the  first  general  assistants  for  America, — 
doubtless  "  gathered  not  a  little  of  the  fruit  where  Whitefield 
had  shaken  the  boughs."  * 

The  labors  of  these  heroes  of  the  cross  our  prescribed 
limits  will  not  permit  us  to  follow  in  detail:  Strawbridge 
planted  Methodism  in  Maryland;  Embury  in  New  York; 
and  Webb  in  Pennsylvania.  The  two  Irishmen,  Straw- 
bridge  and  Embury,  came  to  America  probably  about  the 

*  McTyeire,  History  of  Methodism,  p.  253. 


52 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


same  time — 1760.  Embury,  inspired  by  Barbara  Heck,  be- 
gan preaching  in  his  own  house  in  New  York  in  the  autumn 
of  1766;  in  1767  removed  to  the  Rigging  Loft;  and  in  1768 
built  the  John  Street  chapel,  which  he  dedicated  Oct.  30  of 
thatyear.  Strawbridge  probably  began  preaching  in  his  own 
house  on  Sam's  Creek  as  early  as  1760,  (as  maintained  by  Dr. 
Roberts,*  a  Baltimore  local  preacher  of  ability,  who  thorough- 
ly investigated  the  case)  and  in  1762  had  a  second  preach- 
ing place.  The  Rev.  Wm.  Hamilton  states  that  by  Straw- 
bridge  a  "society  consisting  of  twelve  or  fifteen  persons 
was  formed  as  early  as  1763  or  1764  and  soon  after  a  place 
of  worship  was  erected  called  the  'Log  Meetinghouse.'  "t 
Without  seeking  to  determine  the  question  as  to  the  rela- 
tive priority  of  Strawbridge's  or  Embury's  work,  we  may 
content  ourselves  with  recording  Bishop  Asbury's  statement, 
given  in  his  Journal  under  date  of  April  30,  1801 :  "  We  ar- 
rived to  dine  at  Alexander  Warfield's,  on  Sam's  Creek,  and 
pushed  on  to  Henry  Willis's,  on  Pipe  Creek,  where  it  had 
been  our  intention  to  open  Conference.  We  had  about  for- 
ty members  present,  and  sat  on  Friday,  Saturday,  and  Mon- 
day; on  Tuesday  morning  we  rose  There  was 

preaching  every  day  and  every  night.  Our  own  people  and 
our  friends  in  the  settlement  were  equally  kind ;  and  we  had 
rich  entertainment.  The  settlement  of  Pipe  Creek  is  the 
richest  in  the  state ;  here  Mr.  Strawbridge  formed  the  first 
society  in  Maryland — and  America."  t 

In  1769,  Oct.  24,  Boardman  and  Pilmoor  were  welcomed 
at  Philadelphia  by  Captain  Webb,  whom  Dr.  Stevens  re- 
gards as  the  chief  founder  of  American  Methodism.  Richard 
Boardman  acted  as  Wesley's  "  assistant  "  or  superintendent 
for  the  work  in  America.  In  1770,  "America"  appears  for 
the  first  time  in  the  Hst  of  appointments  from  the  EngUsh  Con- 
ference.   To  this  circuit,  four  preachers  were  assigned:  Jo- 

*Dr.  Stevens,  I.  54,  calls  him  "one  of  our  best  authorities  in  Methodist 
antiquarian  researches." 

IMeth.  Quart.  Rev.  1856,  Art.  "Early  Meth.  in  Maryland." 

J  Asbury's  Journal,  ed.  1821,  III.  27;  the  italics  are  in  the  original. 


Beginnings  of  Methodism  in  America.  53 


seph  Pilmoor,  Richard  Boardman,  Robert  Williams,  and 
John  King.  Williams,  a  volunteer,  whom  Wesley  had  en- 
dorsed, had  reached  America  a  few  weeks  before  the  regu- 
lar itinerant  missionaries,  and  enjoys  the  peculiar  distinction 
of  being  "the  first  Methodist  minister  in  America  that 
published  a  book,  the  first  that  married,  the  first  that  located, 
and  the  first  that  died."  His  greater  claim  to  grateful  re- 
membrance arises  from  the  fact  that  he  was  the  spiritual 
father  of  Jesse  Lee,  the  founder  of  New  England  Metho- 
dism. King,  who  arrived  in  the  country  shortly  after  the 
missionaries,  was  the  first  to  preach  the  gospel  according  to 
Methodism  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  where  it  has  ever  since 
maintained  its  primacy. 

Francis  Asbury,  the  apostle  of  American  Methodism,  and 
Richard  Wright,  were  Wesley's  second  brace  of  itinerant 
appointees,  and  sailed  from  Bristol,  Sept.  4,  1771.  They 
reached  Philadelphia,  Oct.  27,  1771.  Thursday,  Sept.  12, 
Asbury  indulged  in  self-examination  :  "Whither  am  I  going? 
To  the  new  world.  What  to  do?  To  gain  honor?  No,  if 
I  know  my  own  heart.  To  get  money?  No,  I  am  going  to 
live  to  God,  and  to  bring  others  so  to  do.  .  .  .  The 
people  God  owns  in  England  are  the  Methodists.  The  doc- 
trines they  preach,  and  the  discipline  they  enforce,  are,  I 
believe,  the  purest  of  any  people  now  in  the  world.  The 
Lord  has  greatly  blessed  these  doctrines  and  this  discipline 
in  the  three  kingdoms:  they  must  therefore  be  pleasing  to 
him.  If  God  does  not  acknowledge  me  in  America,  I  will 
soon  return  to  England.  I  know  my  views  are  upright  now 
— may  they  never  be  otherwise!  "  * 

On  their  arrival  in  Philadelphia,  the  missionaries  "  were 
directed  to  the  house  of  one,  Mr.  Francis  Harris,  who," 
writes  Asbury,  "  kindl}'  entertained  us  in  the  evening,  and 
brought  us  to  a  large  church,  where  we  met  with  a  consid- 
erable congregation.  Brother  Pilmoor  preached.  The 
people  looked  on  us  with  pleasure,  hardly  knowing  how  to 
show  their  love  sufficiently,  bidding  us  welcome  with  fervent 


*  Asbury 's  Journal,  I.  2. 


54 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


affection,  and  receiving  us  as  angels  of  God.  ...  I 
felt  my  mind  open  to  the  people,  and  my  tongue  loosed  to 
speak."  * 

This  "  large  church,"  in  which  Pilmoor  welcomed  As- 
bury,  as  Asbury  afterward  welcomed  Coke  in  Barratt's 
Chapel,  was  St.  George's,  revered  as  the  "  Old  Cathedral  " 
of  Methodism  in  Philadelphia.  For  nearly  fifty  years  it  was 
the  largest  Methodist  church  in  America.  In  it  the  first 
American  Conference  was  held  in  1773.  It  had  been 
bought,  in  an  unfinished  state,  from  the  German  Reformed 
Church  in  1770  by  Miles  Pennington,  one  of  the  first  mem- 
bers of  the  first  class,  formed  by  Captain  Webb  in  1768. 

In  little  more  than  two  weeks,  on  Nov.  12,  Asbury  set  out 
for  New  York,  and  at  that  place,  Tuesday,  Nov.  20,  re- 
cords in  his  Journal:  "  I  remain  in  York  though  unsatisfied 
with  our  being  both  in  town  together.  I  have  not  yet  the 
thing  which  I  seek — a  circulation  of  preachers  to  avoid  par- 
tiality and  popularity.  However,  I  am  fixed  to  the  Metho- 
dist plan,  and  do  what  I  do  faithfully  as  to  God.  I  expect 
trouble  is  at  hand.  This  I  expected  when  I  left  England, 
and  I  am  willing  to  suffer — yea,  to  die — sooner  than  betray 
so  good  a  cause  by  any  means.  It  will  be  a  hard  matter  to 
stand  against  all  opposition  as  an  iron  pillar  strong,  and 
steadfast  as  a  wall  of  brass;  but,  through  Christ  strengthen- 
ing me,  I  can  do  all  things."  f 

In  New  York  he  had  found  Boardman,  "in  peace,  but 
weak  in  body."  Two  days  later  he  adds:  "At  present  I 
am  dissatisfied.  I  judge  we  are  to  be  shut  up  in  the  cities 
this  winter.  My  brethren  seem  unwilling  to  leave  the  cities, 
but  I  think  I  shall  show  them  the  way.  I  am  in  trouble, 
and  more  trouble  is  at  hand,  for  I  am  determined  to  make 
a  stand  against  all  partiality.  I  have  nothing  to  seek  but 
the  glory  of  God,  nothing  to  fear  but  his  displeasure.  I  am 
come  over  with  an  upright  intention,  and  through  the  grace 
of  God  I  will  make  it  appear:  and  I  am  determined  that 
no  man  shall  bias  me  with  soft  words  and  fair  speeches ; 


♦Journal,  I.  4.  ^Tbid.^l.e 


Beginnings  of  Methodism  in  America. 


55 


.  .  .  but  whomsoever  I  please  or  displease,  I  will  be 
faithful  to  God,  to  the  people,  and  to  my  own  soul." 

Boardman  was  the  chief— Mr.  Wesley's  "Assistant"  in 
charge  of  the  American  circuit;  Asbury  the  subordinate — 
only  a  "helper."  But  perhaps  there  had  been  some  talk 
with  Wesley  about  evils  he  was  to  correct,  with  some  special 
commission,  before  he  left  England,  as  Asbury  declares  he 
had  expected  trouble  even  before  his  departure.  Moreover, 
Pilmoor  had  written  to  Wesley  that  Mr.  Boardman  and  him- 
self were  "  chiefly  confined  to  the  cities,  and  therefore  can- 
not, at  present,  go  much  into  the  country:"  both  the  poli- 
cy and  the  reasons  assigned  for  it,  Wesley  probably  dis- 
liked; if  so,  Asbury  had  been  told  what  he  was  to  do.  Of 
Boardman,  Asbury  writes,  he  "is  a  kind,  loving,  worthy 
man,  truly  amiable  and  entertaining,  and  of  a  childlike 
temper."  His  silence  about  his  administrative  gifts  is  note- 
worthy. It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  under  date  of 
Oct.  lO,  1772,  we  find  Asbury  making  this  record:  "  I  re- 
ceived a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  he  required  a 
strict  attention  to  discipline ;  and  appointed  me  to  act  as 
assistant.'" 

Philadelphia  and  New  York  were  good  enough  for  Pil- 
moor (who  subsequently  became  one  of  American  Metho- 
dism's earliest  contributions  to  the  ministry  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church)  and  good  Brother  Boardman;  Straw- 
bridge  was  later  settled  over  the  Sam's  Creek  and  Bush 
Forest  congregations;  and  Asbury  once  had  a  "call"  to 
an  Episcopal  Church  in  Maryland:  "the  Church  and  the 
nation  owe  the  maintenance  of  the  itinerancy,"  says  Ste- 
vens, "with  its  incalculable  blessings,  chiefly  to  the  invinci- 
ble energ)^  of  Francis  Asbury." 

Asbury's  promotion  was  effected  apparently  without  fric- 
tion, for  on  Oct.  19  he  met  Brother  Boardman  at  Princeton 
and  says,  "  We  both  agreed  in  judgment  about  the  affairs  of 
the  society,  and  were  comforted  together,"  which  seems 
to  be  a  modest  way  of  stating  that  the  new  "  helper  "  ac- 
cepted the  views  of  the  new  "  assistant"  and  easily  adjusted 


56 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


himself  to  the  changed  situation,  which  relieved  him  of  irk- 
some responsibility. 

The  first  Quarterly  Conference  in  America  of  which  we 
have  any  account  was  held  at  J.  Presbury's  on  the  western 
shore  of  Maryland,  Dec.  23,  1772.    Mr.  Asbury  says: 

"  We  afterwards  proceeded  to  our  temporal  business,  and 
considered  the  following  propositions: 

"I.  What  are  our  collections?  We  found  them  sufficient 
to  defray  our  expenses. 

*'  2.  How  are  the  preachers  stationed?  Brother  S. 
[Strawbridge]  and  Brother  O.  [Owen],  in  Frederick 
County;  Brother  K.  [King],  Brother  W.  [Webster],  and 
I.  R.  [Isaac  Rollins],  on  the  other  side  of  the  bay;  and  my- 
self in  Baltimore. 

"3.  Shall  we  be  strict  in  our  society  meetings,  and  not 
admit  strangers ?  Agreed. 

"  4.  Shall  we  drop  preaching  in  the  day  time  through  the 
week?    Not  agreed  to. 

"5.  Will  the  people  be  contented  without  our  administer- 
ing the  sacrament?  J.  K.  was  neuter;  Brother  S.  pleaded 
much  for  the  ordinances,  and  so  did  the  people,  who  ap- 
peared to  be  much  biased  by  him.  I  told  them  I  would  not 
agree  to  it  at  that  time,  and  insisted  on  our  abiding  by  our 
rules.  But  Mr.  B.  [Boardman]  had  given  them  their  way 
at  the  quarterly  meeting  held  here  before,  and  I  was  obliged 
to  connive  at  some  things  for  the  sake  of  peace. 

"  6.  Shall  we  make  collections  weekly,  to  pay  the  preach- 
ers' board  and  expenses?  This  was  not  agreed  to:  we  then 
inquired  into  the  moral  character  of  the  preachers  and  ex- 
horters.  Only  one  exhorter  was  found  any  way  doubtful,  and 
we  have  great  hopes  of  him.  Brother  S.  received  £8  quar- 
terage; Brother  K.  and  myself,  £6  each.  Great  love  sub- 
sisted among  us  in  this  meeting,  and  we  parted  in  peace."  * 

Here  the  great  question  of  the  ordinances,  which  subse- 
quently came  so  near  producing  an  early  schism  in  American 
Methodism,  meets  us  for  the  first  time:  Strawbridge  appears 


*  Journal,  I.  37,  38.    Cf.  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  I.  133. 


Beginnings  of  Methodism  in  Atnerica. 


51 


as  the  earnest  advocate  of  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments and  Asbury  falls  heir  to  some  difficulties  arising  from 
the  lax  administration  of  easy  Brother  Boardman. 

At  the  British  Conference  of  1772,  Captain  Webb,  re- 
cruiting for  America,  asked  for  two  of  the  ablest  men, 
Christopher  Hopper  and  Joseph  Benson,  the  commentator, 
Thomas  Rankin  and  George  Shadford  were  sent  and  were 
cordially  received  by  Asbury  at  Philadelphia,  June  3,  1773.* 

"Thomas  Rankin  was  one  of  the  commanding  men  of 
the  Wesleyan  itinerancy.  Wesley  appointed  him  at  once 
General  Assistant  or  Superintendent  of  the  American  So- 
cieties, for  he  was  not  only  Asbury's  senior  in  the  itin- 
erancy, but  was  an  experienced  disciplinarian ;  and  Wesley 
judged  him  competent  to  manage  the  difficulties  which  had 
arisen  under  the  administration  of  Asbury,  as  represented 
in  the  correspondence  of  the  latter.  Asbury  had  probably 
asked  to  be  relieved  by  such  a  successor,  and  welcomed  him 
with  sincere  gratification."  t 

Mr.  Asbury's  plan  of  extending  the  work  had  carried  him 
much  into  the  country  districts.  To  this  policy,  as  we  have 
seen,  he  steadfastly  adhered.  "  But  while  he  was  thus  en- 
gaged in  visiting  the  plantations  and  villages,  an  undue 
eagerness  to  extend  the  work  in  the  towns  had  unhappily  led 
to  a  comparative  neglect  of  discipline."  t  Di"-  Bangs  de- 
clares that  "  notwithstanding  the  vigilance  of  Mr.  Asbury 
many  disorders  still  existed  for  which  an  adequate 
remedy  had  not  been  provided.  These  things  had  been 
communicated  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and  he  therefore  clothed  Mr. 
Rankin  with  powers  superior  to  any  which  had  been  vested 
in  his  predecessors  in  office."  § 

*  Journal,  I.  52.  t  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Church,  I.  142. 

X  Drew,  Life  of  Coke,  p.  61.       §  Bangs,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  I.  80. 

Note. — The  most  important  book  on  this  period  issued  since  the  publi- 
cation of  the  first  edition  of  this  work  is  Dr.  John  Atkinson's  "  Beginnings 
of  the  Wesleyan  Movement  in  America,"  of  which  I  have  given  a  full  ac- 
count in  T//e  Meihodist  Review  for  July,  1896,  pp.  430-437.  His  chief  new 
source  is  Pilmoor's  Journal,  covering  tlie  entire  period  of  his  American  la- 
bors, and  complementing  Asbury's  account  from  another  standpoint. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  FIRST  AMERICAN  CONFERENCE:    1 7 73. 

THAT  Thomas  Rankin,  the  accomplished  disciplinarian  of 
eleven  years'  standing  in  the  British  Conference,  and  Mr. 
Wesley's  General  Assistant  for  America,  specially  appointed 
to  rectify  the  American  administration  and  to  bring  it  into 
harmony  with  the  English  model,  formed  under  Wesley's 
own  eye  and  hand,  should  preside  over  the  itinerants  of  the 
New  World  in  their  first  Conference  at  Philadelphia  in  1773, 
was  a  matter  of  course.  He  represented  his  chief.  Mr. 
Wesley's  right  of  appointment  and  control  was  undisputed, 
and,  in  the  light  of  all  the  precedents  in  which  these  men 
had  been  trained,  indisputable.  The  title  of  the  Minutes  of 
the  first  formal  Conference  ever  held  by  Methodist  preach- 
ers on  the  continent  of  America  is  "Minutes  of  Some 
Conversations  between  the  Preachers  in  Connection  vv'ith  the 
Reverend  Mr.  John  Wesley."  And  this  continued  to  be 
the  official  heading  of  the  proceedings  of  the  American  Con- 
ference down  to  and  including  the  Conference  which  sat  in 
April  and  May  of  1784.  In  1785  begins  the  series  of  "Min- 
utes Taken  at  the  Several  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church:"  a  series  which  in  both  branches 
of  Episcopal  Methodism  has  been  perpetuated  to  this  day.* 
Thus  from  the  beginning  in  both  England  and  America, 
Methodism  has  been  a  "Connection."  The  term  is  tech- 
nical, and  characteristic  of  the  denomination.  Connection- 
alism  is  of  the  essence  of  the  system,  equally  opposed  to 
Congregationalism  in  the  churches  and  to  individualism  in  the 
preachers.  Mr.  Wesley,  in  America  no  less  than  in  En- 
gland, was,  at  the  first,  the  center  of  union.  Connection  with 

*  Minutes,  Ed.  1813,  pp.  2-49;  for  important  variation,  see  Ed.  1795  for 
1785,  1786,  and  1787. 
(58) 


The  First  American  Conference:  1773- 


59 


him  was  the  living  bond  which  held  incipient  American 
Methodism  together.  He  was  the  fountain  of  authority, 
acknowledged  by  all  as  rightful,  original,  and  supreme. 
Through  him  a  closer  organic  union  subsisted  between  the 
Methodism  of  America,  recognized  at  home  as  scarcely 
more  than  a  needy  but  promising  and  fruitful  mission-field, 
and  that  of  England,  than  between  the  colonies,  now  on  the 
eve  of  revolt,  and  the  mother  country.  Mr.  Wesley  was  the 
patriarch  and  apostle,  the  founder  and  creator,  of  Ecumen- 
ical Methodism.  Mr.  Rankin  was  his  American  legate  or 
viceroy.  He  took  the  President's  chair  in  the  first  Confer- 
ence without  question  and  as  of  right.  He  directed  the  busi- 
ness and  made  the  appointments  of  the  preachers. 

In  St.  George's  Church,  the  "Methodist  cathedral,"  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  canonical  day,  Wednesday, 
July  14,  1773,  the  first  American  Methodist  Conference  as- 
sembled: it  continued  in  session  three  days,  adjourning 
Friday,  July  16.*  Asbury  calls  the  Conference  "  General\''\ 
but  this  was  in  contradistinction  to  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ences hitherto  held:  the  distinction  between  Annual  and 
General  Conferences  did  not  yet  exist.  The  Conference 
from  this  time  became  annual,  as  to  its  periodical  meetings, 
and  general,  as  to  its  representing  and  supervising  and  pro- 
viding for  the  whole  work.  Its  functions  as  we  shall  see 
were  chiefly  executive,  though,  also,  under  the  necessities  of 
the  situation  of  the  Americans  and  the  watchful  and  suffi- 
cient authority  of  Mr.  Rankin,  ^2LX\\-aX\.y  legislative.  Its  leg- 
islation was  of  two  general  descriptions :  ( i )  Declared  agree- 
ment with,  and  subordination  to,  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Brit- 
ish Conference  in  the  fundamentals  of  doctrine  and  polity; 
and  (2)  Special  and  local  rules  to  guide  the  administration 

*  These  dates  are  fixed  with  certainty  by  both  Rankin's  and  Asbury's 
Journals.  See  A. 's  Journal,  I.  55.  The  printed  minutes  represent  itas  held 
in  June — this  is  clearly  a  mistake,  either  clerical  or  typographical.  Bangs' 
and  Smith's  Histories  say  July  4,  but  that  day  in  1773  was  Sunday.  Other 
dates  are  given  by  various  authorities.  Compare  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E. 
Church,  I.  160,  footnote. 

■f  Journal,  I.  55.    Atkinson,  "  Beginnings,"  p.  iv,  argues  for  the  title. 


6o 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


of  the  American  preachers,  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  in 
which  they  found  themselves. 

The  first  American  Conference,  like  the  first  English,  of 
1744,  was  composed  of  ten  members,  all  Europeans,  as  fol- 
lows: Thomas  Rankin,  Richard  Boardman,  Joseph  Pil- 
moor,  Francis  Asbury,  Richard  Wright,  George  Shadford, 
Thomas  Webb,  John  King,  Abraham  Whitworth,  and  Jo- 
seph Yearbry.  To  all  of  these  we  have  previously  been 
introduced  in  these  pages  save  Whitworth  and  Yearbry: 
the  latter  came  over  with  Rankin  and  Shadford,*  and  the 
former  was  an  Englishman  who  had  labored  faithfully  with 
Webb  and  Asbury  in  New  Jersey  in  1772, t  and  was  received 
into  full  connection  at  the  second  Conference  in  1774,  when 
Yearbry  was  also  admitted.  Boardman  and  Pilmoor  do 
not  appear  in  the  list  of  appointments,  though  they  tarried 
in  America  for  nearly  six  months  after  the  Conference,  em- 
barking together  for  England,  Jan.  2,  1774.  Politically  and 
ecclesiastically  America  was  becoming  somewhat  unsuited 
to  their  tastes.  They  were  loyal  Enghshmen  and  the  clouds 
of  the  war  of  the  Revolution  were  now  lowering.  Rankin, 
supported  by  Asbury,  who  makes  some  sharp  and  significant 
allusions  in  his  Journal,  was  enforcing  rigid  discipline  on 
preachers  and  people  alike:  and  so  the  worthy  pair,  who 
had  accomplished  much  good  during  their  four  years'  so- 
journ in  America,  departed  in  peace.  "Asbury  labored 
hard  to  conform  the  American  Societies  to  Wesley's  mod- 
el," remarks  Stevens,  "  but  had  met  with  no  little  resistance 
from  both  the  preachers  and  laymen;  Rankin  had  been 
sent  out  for  this  purpose,  and  to  these  two  thorough  discip- 
linarians we  owe  the  effective  organization  of  the  incipient 
Methodism  of  the  new  world.  Without  them  it  seems  prob- 
able that  it  would  have  adopted  a  settled  pastorate,  and  be- 

*  Asbury's  Journal,  I.  52. 

I  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.  I.  203:  it  is  evidently  an  error,  from  which  the 
most  careful  historian  cannot  altogether  free  his  pages,  by  which  Stevens 
represents  Shadford  as  laboring  in  New  Jersey  in  1772.  He  did  not  come 
over  till  1773. 


The  First  American  Conference:  lyyj.  6i 


come  blended  with  the  Anglican  Church  of  the  colonies,  or 
like  the  fruits  of  Whitefield's  labors,  have  been  absorbed  in 
the  general  Protestantism  of  the  country."  *  Nor  was  our 
good  friend  Captain  Webb  in  a  position  to  take  a  regular 
appointment  consistently  with  his  other  engagements.  But 
these  three  vacancies  in  the  ranks  were  filled  by  three  noble 
men.  Robert  Strawbridge,  Robert  Williams,  and-William 
Watters — to  whom  is  "  now  universally  conceded  the  pe- 
cuHar  distinction  of  being  the  first  native  American  itinerant 
of  Methodism"! — received  appointments,  though  they 
were  not  present. 

The  business  of  the  Conference  as  recorded  is  digested 
into  three  distinct  numerical  series:  (i)  the  first  settles  fun- 
damental questions  of  doctrine  and  discipline  in  relation  to 
Mr.  Wesley  and  the  English  Conference,  and  might  well  be 
styled  constittitional ;  (2)  the  second  embraces  "  rules  and 
regulations  "  for  the  government  of  the  American  preachers 
and  people,  and  might  fairly  be  designated  legislative  in  the 
narrower  sense;  (3)  the  third  includes  what  would  now  be 
called  "  minute  business  "  in  an  Annual  Conference  and  is 
transacted  under  two  ^tiestions:  "  How  are  the  preachers 
stationed?"  and  "What  numbers  are  there  in  Society?" 
These  questions  fall  within  the  limits  of  the  ordinary  execu- 
tive functions  of  our  present  Annual  Conferences.  Under 
these  heads  we  shall  consider  the  various  transactions  of  the 
First  American  Conference. 

/.  Constitutional :  Doctrine  and  Discipline. 

The  first  "  query  proposed  to  every  preacher,"  doubtless 
from  the  Chair,  as  Rankin  had  seen  Wesley  do  many  times 
in  England,  was  this:  "Ought  not  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Wesley  and  that  Conference  to  extend  to  the  preachers  and 
people  in  America,  as  well  as  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland?  " 
The  answer — by  obvious  implication  the  answ^er  of  "  every 
preacher" — was,  "2^(?5." 

The  second  was  like  unto  the  first,  "  Ought  not  the  doc- 


*  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Church,  I.  161.    t  Stevens,  1. 175. 


62 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


trine  and  discipline  of  the  Methodists,  as  contained  in  the 
[English]  minutes  to  be  the  sole  rule  of  our  conduct,  who 
labor  in  the  connection  with  Mr,  Wesley  in  America?"  A 
similar  answer  was  given,  "/gs." 

The  words  of  the  wise  are  as  goads,  and  as  nails  fastened 
by  the  masters  of  assembhes,  which  are  given  from  one 
shepherd;  that  this  nail  of  union  in  one  Methodist  fold 
under  one  Methodist  shepherd  might  be  driven  through,  un- 
til it  should  goad  him  who  should  kick  against  it,  Rankin, 
the  "  disciphnarian,"  propounded,  and  the  preachers  an- 
swered, a  third  question,  "  If  so,  does  it  not  follow  that  if 
any  preachers  deviate  from  the  minutes  we  can  have  no  fel- 
lowship with  them  till  they  change  their  conduct?  "  Again 
a  simple,  and  unanimous,  "i'Vs,"  settled  the  question. 

Thus  was  the  action  of  the  Conference,  in  the  preliminary 
business  of  settling  the  foundations,  concluded.  The  propo- 
sal of  the  questions  hardly  involved  the  right  of  the  body  to 
reach  a  contrary  conclusion.  That  contingency  was  not 
contemplated.  To  preacher  or  preachers  who  answered 
these  questions  in  the  negative,  it  is  obvious  that  Rankin  and 
the  Conference  would  have  straightway  declared,  "  We  can 
have  no  fellowship  with  them  till  they  change  their  conduct." 
It  was  a  sifting  and  settling  time.  Rankin's  business  in 
America  was  to  consolidate  a  body  of  American  Methodists 
after  the  type  of  the  primitive  Wesleyan  model.  The  pre- 
vious administration  had  not  conformed  entirely  to  these 
principles.  Boardman  was  good,  but  easy;  Asbury  had 
superseded  him  and  encountered  difficulties;  Rankin  had 
come  with  an  express  commission  from  Wesley  to  set  all 
things  in  order.  Eleven  hundred  and  sixty  members  were 
reported  in  Society,  but,  writes  Rankin,  "  Some  of  the 
above  number  I  found  afterward  were  not  closely  united  to 
us.  Indeed  our  discipline  was  not  properly  attended  to,  ex- 
cept at  Philadelphia  and  New  York;  and  even  in  those 
places  it  was  upon  the  decline.  Nevertheless,  from  the  ac- 
counts I  heard,  there  was  a  real  foundation  laid  of  doing 
much  good,  and  we  hoped  to  see  greater  things  than  these. 


The  First  American  Conference:  177 j. 


63 


The  preachers  were  stationed  in  the  best  manner  we  could, 
and  we  parted  in  love,  and  also  with  a  full  resolution  to 
spread  genuine  Methodism  in  public  and  private  with  all 
our  might.''  Of  course  it  is  conceivable  that  a  majority  or 
the  whole  of  the  Conference,  under  mistaken  or  mischievous 
influences,  might  have  obstinately  refused  to  answer  affirm- 
atively the  preHminary  questions  which,  according  to  primi- 
tive usage,  Rankin  doubtless  felt  it  his  duty  to  propound 
from  the  Chair.  '  He  desired  a  free  and  outspoken  commit- 
tal of  the  preachers  on  these  vital  points,  and  it  was  freely 
and  manfully  given.  This  course  probably  accorded  strict- 
ly with  his  instructions  from  Wesley.  Had  a  majority  of 
the  preachers  refused  compliance,  the  only  result  could  have 
been  a  regular  and  an  irregular,  a  primitive  and  a  schis- 
matic, Methodism  in  America.  Both  might  have  prospered, 
or  one  have  come  to  naught:  we  cannot  tell.  If  the  whole 
Conference  had  set  itself  against  union  with,  and  subordina- 
tion to,  Wesley,  Rankin  would  still  have  had  the  alternative  of 
withdrawal  to  England,  leaving  the  Americans  in  possession 
of  the  field  to  develop  such  a  Methodism  as  their  wisdom 
might  frame  or  Providence  shape.  It  might  have  succeed- 
ed; it  probably  would  have  failed:  again  we  cannot  tell. 
We  cannot  speculate  sanely  upon  the  results  of  a  hypothet- 
ical statement  of  facts.  These  alternatives  have  been  con- 
sidered simply  to  show  that  Rankin  sought  and  obtained  a 
free  and  unanimous  consent  of  the  Americans  to  certain 
fundamental  conditions  of  union  with  Mr.  Wesley,  without 
which  the  work  could  not  have  continued  under  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's direction. 

These  and  the  other  conclusions  of  the  Conference  were 
not  reached  without  friction.  The  new  administration  was 
in  some  sense  an  impeachment  of  the  old.  Boardman 
and  Pilmoor,  as  the  first  missionaries  formally  sent  out  by 
Wesley  in  1769,  had  inaugurated  that  old  administration  and 
for  four  years  had  given  it  a  complexion  which  even  Asbury 
did  not  succeed  in  altering.  Concerning  the  proceedings 
of  the  body,  Asbury  says:  "There  were  some  debates 


64 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


amongst  the  preachers  in  this  Conference  relative  to  the 
conduct  of  some  who  had  manifested  a  desire  to  abide  in 
the  cities  and  live  like  gentlemen.  Three  years  out  of  four 
have  been  already  spent  in  the  cities.  It  was  also  feared 
that  money  had  been  wasted,  improper  leaders  appointed, 
and  many  of  our  rules  broken."  *  That  these  debates 
helped  Messrs.  Boardman  and  Pilmoor  to  reach  conclusions 
and  form  decisions  is  highly  probable.  It  is  certain  they  re- 
ceived no  appointments  from  General-Assistant  Rankin  and 
that,  whether  influenced  by  poHtical  or  ecclesiastical  consid- 
erations or  a  combination  of  both,  they  soon  left  the  country. 
Asbury  arrived  at  Philadelphia  on  Thursday,  July  15,  the  sec- 
ond day  of  the  Conference  session,  "  but  did  not  find  such 
perfect  harmony,"  he  says,  "  as  I  could  wish  for."  t  There 
were,  as  we  have  seen,  some  grounds  for  such  differences, 
though  these  were  dissipated,  and  "  We  parted  in  love,"  as 
Rankin  records.  "  Y'wsi  pure,  then  peaceable''  is  the  divine 
order.  But  Asbury 's  attitude  was  evidently  somewhat  critical. 
It  was  a  part  of  his  temperament  as  a  born  leader.  About  true 
greatness  a  trace  of  human  infirmity  often  lingers.  It  is  not 
matter  of  record,  though  commonly  conjectured,  that  Asbury 
had  requested  that  Rankin,  or  some  such  superintendent, 
should  be  sent  out.  %  He  had  been  the  chief  of  administra- 
tion. He  was  now  superseded.  He  probably  knew  more 
about  the  work  and  the  men  than  anybody  else  present — 
certainly  more  than  the  newly-arrived  President  of  the  Con- 
ference. The  business  may  not  have  been  transacted  ex- 
actly as  he  would  have  brought  it  forward.  Some  things 
had  gone  wrong  in  America,  as  he  had  seen  and  had  ear- 
nestly endeavored  to  correct.  It  is  possible  that  the  methods 
of  reaching  some  of  the  conclusions,  so  briefly  recorded  in 
the  minutes  of  the  Conference,  were  not  the  best — rather 
English  than  American — and  that  the  manner  of  General- 
Assistant  Rankin,  occupying  the  chair,  toward  Ex-Assistant 
Asbury,  or  possibly  toward  the  Conference  itself,  was  not 
always  conciliatory.    But  whatever  deductions  are  to  be 


♦Journal,  I.  56.  ■\Ibid.,\.  c,t,.    J  See  Atkinson,  "  Beginnings,"  p.  405. 


The  First  American  Conference:  1773- 


65 


made  for  the  personal  equation,  arising  from  human  infirmi- 
ties, the  results  reached  were  sound  and  enduring,  and  con- 
stitute no  mean  tribute  to  the  ecclesiastical  statesmanship  of 
Rankin  and  the  First  American  Conference. 

The  first  edition  of  the  "Large  Minutes,"  as  we  have 
seen  in  a  former  chapter,  had  been  issued  in  1753;  the  sec- 
ond in  1763;  and  the  third  in  1770:  this  last  publication  it 
was,  doubtless,  which  by  the  action  of  the  Philadelphia  Con- 
ference of  1773  became  the  original  doctrinal  and  disciplin- 
ary basis  of  American  Methodism.  It  contained  the  record 
of  the  Leeds  Conference  of  1769  when  the  preachers,  at  Mr. 
Wesley's  suggestion,  bound  themselves  "to  preach  the  old 
Methodist  doctrines,  and  no  other,  contained  in  the  Minutes 
of  the  Conferences,"  and  "  to  observe  and  enforce  the  whole 
Methodist  discipline,  laid  down  in  the  said  Minutes."* 

This  further  commentary  may  conclude  our  notice  of  the 
first  section  of  the  action  of  the  Conference :  we  find  the 
superintending  and  appointing  power  present  in  the  person 
of  Mr.  Rankin,  and  the  Conference  itself  constituting  the 
consulting  element,  with  limited  legislative  privileges,  exer- 
cised in  the  enactment  of  certain  rules  to  be  hereafter  no- 
ticed. The  superintending  power  in  the  first  American 
Conference  derived  its  existence  and  authority  directly  and 
solely  from  Mr.  Wesley;  and  the  consulting  element  freely 
acknowledged  the  legitimacy  and  rightful  authority  of  the 
superintendency.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  are  not 
debating  theories  of  goverhment  and  weighing  their  compar- 
ative merits :  we  are  studying  history — constitutional  history 
— and  when  we  get  back  to  the  beginnings  of  American 
Methodist  polity,  this  we  find  to  be  the  shape  which  the 
government  actually  assumed ;  these  the  forms  under  which 

*Dr.  Robert  Emory,  in  his  History  of  the  Discipline,  begins  with  a  com- 
parison between  the  original  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
1784,  with  the  Large  Minutes  as  found  in  Wesley's  Works,  V.  211-239 
which  were  printed  from  a  copy  bearing  date  1791 — the  vear  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's death — collated  with  the  edition  of  1789.  Rankin,  however,  may  have 
brought  over  copies  of  the  edition  of  1772,  which  corresponds  closely 
with  that  of  1770.    See  parallel  columns  in  Vol.  I.  of  the  Minutes  of  1862. 

5 


66 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


the  elemental  constitutional  units  first  manifested  them- 
selves. 

//.  Legislative :  Rules  and  Regulations. 

Besides  the  three  questions  on  doctrine  and  discipline, 
whose  answers  settled,  in  a  manner  not  improperly  described 
as  constitutional,  the  fundamental  relations  of  the  Americans 
to  Mr.  Wesley  and  British  Methodism,  six  rules  "  were 
agreed  to  by  all  the  preachers  present,"  of  which  the  first 
two  were  as  follows:  "  i.  Every  preacher  who  acts  in  con- 
nection with  Mr,  Wesley  and  the  brethren  who  labor  in 
America,  is  strictly  to  avoid  administering  the  ordinances  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  2.  All  the  people  among 
whom  we  labor  to  be  earnestly  exhorted  to  attend  the 
Church,  and  to  receive  the  ordinances  there ;  but  in  a  par- 
ticular manner,  to  press  the  people  in  Maryland  and  Vir- 
ginia to  the  observance  of  this  minute."* 

The  minutes  at  this  point  are  not  strictly  correct ;  or,  more 
probably,  there  was  a  private  understanding  as  to  a  certain 
noteworthy  exception  to  the  operation  of  these  rules.  As- 
bury's  Journal  reveals  the  name  of  a  preacher  who  was  per- 
mitted to  administer  the  sacraments :  '  *  No  preacher  in  our 
connection  shall  be  permitted  to  administer  the  ordinances 
at  this  time;  except  Mr.  S.  [Strawbridge],  and  he  under  the 
particular  direction  of  the  assistant."  f 

Strawbridge's  position  was  independent  and  influential. 
Though  his  name  appears  among  the  appointments,  it  was 
by  no  means  certain  that  the  Conference  could  exercise 
jurisdiction  over,  or  execute  discipline  upon,  the  father  of 
Methodism  in  Maryland,  where  there  were  five  hundred 
members  in  Society.  As  early  as  1762  or  1763  he  baptized 
Henry  Maynard,  who  died  as  late  as  1837.  There  is  reason 
to  believe  he  had  been  ordained  by  a  German  minister,  a 
certain  Benedict  Swoope,  just  as  Otterbein  afterwards  assist- 
ed at  the  episcopal  ordination  of  Asbury  himself. t  He  had 
things  in  a  mighty  swing  in  Maryland.    It  is  a  tribute  to  his 

*  Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  p.  6;  ed.  of  1813,  p.  5.    •}•  Journal,  I.  56. 

J  William  Fort,  in  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  July  10,  1844. 


The  First  American  Conference:  1773. 


67 


unique  relation  to  the  work  that,  though  not  present  at  the 
Conference,  he  was  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  sac- 
ramental rule.  Boardman,  when  he  was  Assistant,  could 
not  or  did  not  stop  him.  Asbury  "was  obliged  to  connive 
at  some  things  for  the  sake  of  peace "  when  he  held  the 
Quarterly  Meeting,  Dec.  23,  1772.  General-Assistant 
Rankin  concluded  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  his  illustrious 
predecessors,  and  the  Conference  dared  not  leave  him  off 
the  plan  of  the  work  or  abridge  his  privileges  long  recog- 
nized by  the  people,  to  whom  he  administered  the  sacra- 
ments before  any  English  itinerants  appeared  in  the  country. 

In  the  first  Quarterly  Conference  of  which  any  record  ex- 
ists; in  the  first  Annual  Conference  that  ever  sat,  Straw- 
bridge  won  the  day.  "  Being  an  Irishman,  he  shared  not 
in  the  deferential  sympathies  of  his  English  brethren  for  the 
Establishment;  as  for  any  other  sentiments,  the  actual  char- 
acter of  the  representatives  of  the  Establishment,  clerical 
and  lay,  around  him,  could  claim  none  from  him  but  pity  or 
contempt.  Its  clergy  were  known  chiefly  as  the  heartiest 
card-players,  horse-racers,  and  drinkers  of  the  middle  colo- 
nies. Robert  Strawbridge  was  doubtless  imprudent  in  the 
Irish  resolution  with  which  he  resisted  the  polic}--  of  the 
English  itinerants ;  for  the  intuitive  foresight,  with  which  he 
anticipated  the  necessity  of  the  independent  administration 
of  the  sacraments,  should  have  suggested  to  him  the  certain- 
ty of  their  concession  in  due  time,  and  therefore  the  expe- 
diency of  patient  harmony  in  the  infant  Church  till  that  time 
should  come."*  Whether  Dr.  Stevens'  reasoning  in  the 
last  sentence  is  conclusive  or  not,  Strawbridge  stood  for  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  American  Methodists  against  the  con- 
servative English.  It  seemed  as  if  he  must  win.  The  sac- 
ramental controversy  came  near  disrupting  American  Meth- 
odism. Mr.  Wesley  conceded  the  point  none  too  soon  when 
in  1784  the  Christmas  Conference  organized  the  "  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  in  America." 

But  if  the  first  three  questions  and  answers  settle  the  sub- 

*  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  I.  164,  165. 


68 


American  Methodism  to  178/f.. 


ordination  of  the  American  Methodists  to  Mr.  Wesley  and 
the  British  Conference,  these  first  two  rules,  unanimously 
adopted,  equally  settle  the  relation  of  the  Societies  in  Amer- 
ica to  the  Church  of  England,  as  it  existed  in  the  colonies 
before  the  revolutionary  war.  That  relation,  it  was  intend- 
ed, should  be  identical  with  the  relation  of  the  United  Socie- 
ty to  the  Church  in  England.  The  sacraments  were  to 
be  sought  at  her  altars  from  the  hands  of  her  clergy.  The 
people  were  to  be  "exhorted"  and  "pressed"  to  attend 
"  the  Church  "  and  to  receive  the  ordinances  there.  These 
American  Methodists  considered  themselves  Episcopalians, 
with  the  peculiarities  and  improvements  of  Methodists  su- 
peradded. In  spirit  and  fact,  they  were  submissive  now 
both  to  Mr.  Wesley  and  to  the  Church  of  England :  so  the 
Conference  action  indicates.  But  by  and  by  American 
Methodism  was  confronted  with  the  perplexities  of  a  prob- 
lem which  involved  the  achievement  of  a  twofold  independ- 
ence: (i)  independence  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  British 
Conference,  and  (2)  independence  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland. Mr.  Wesley  in  enabling  them  to  achieve  the  latter 
unwittingly  afforded  them  the  conditions  for  achieving  also 
the  former.  Precisely  how  this  double  independence  was 
wrought  out,  it  will  be  the  province  of  the  following  pages 
to  delineate. 

The  third  rule  adopted  by  the  Conference  was  designed 
to  enforce  strictly  in  America  a  uniform  observance  of  Eng- 
lish Methodism:  "No  person  or  persons  to  be  admitted  into 
our  love-feasts  oftener  than  twice  or  thrice,  unless  they  be- 
come members;  and  none  to  be  admitted  to  the  society 
meetings  more  than  thrice."  * 

The  fourth  and  fifth  rules  are  intended  to  regulate  the 
book  business,  and  thus  in  the  very  first  Conference  appear 
the  germs  of  the  legislation  which  has  established  and  fos- 
tered the  great  publishing  interests  of  American  Methodism : 

"  4.  None  of  the  preachers  in  America  to  reprint  any  of 
Mr.  Wesley's  books  without  his  authority  (when  it  can  be 


♦Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  p.  6;  ed.  of  1813,  p.  6. 


The  First  American  Conference:  177J. 


69 


gotten)  and  the  consent  of  their  brethren.  5.  Robert  Wil- 
liams to  sell  the  books  he  has  already  printed,  but  to  print 
no  more,  unless  under  the  above  restrictions."  * 

Brother  Williams'  difficulty  is  hinted  at  by  Mr.  Asbury, 
"  I  was  somewhat  troubled  to  hear  of  Mr.  W.,  who  had 
printed  some  of  Mr.  Wesley's  books  for  the  sake  of  gain. 
This  will  not  do.  It  does  by  no  means  look  well."  t  This 
judgment  is  too  severe.  Probably  Brother  Williams'  neces- 
sities— his  distresses — were  great.  Jesse  Lee,  the  first  his- 
torian of  Methodism,  says:  "Previous  to  the  formation  of 
this  rule,  Robert  Williams,  one  of  the  preachers,  had  re- 
printed many  of  Mr.  Wesley's  books,  and  had  spread  them 
through  the  country,  to  the  great  advantage  of  religion. 
The  sermons,  which  he  printed  in  small  pamphlets,  had  a 
very  good  effect,  and  gave  the  people  great  light  and  under- 
standing in  the  nature  of  the  new  birth  and  in  the  plan  of 
salvation;  and  withal,  they  opened  the  way  in  many  places 
for  our  preachers  to  be  invited  to  preach  where  they  had 
never  been  before.  But,  notwithstanding  the  good  that  had 
been  done  by  the  circulation  of  the  books,  it  now  became 
necessary  for  all  the  preachers  to  be  united  in  the  same  course 
of  printing  and  selling  our  books,  so  that  the  profits  arising 
therefrom  might  be  divided  among  them  or  applied  to  some 
charitable  purpose."  %  Let  us  honor  Williams  then  as  the 
preacher  who  inaugurated  the  publishing  business  in  Amer- 
ican Methodism,  and  by  his  activity  induced  legislation  to 
regulate  it  in  the  first  Conference. 

The  sixth  and  last  rule  extends  the  supervision  and  au- 
thority of  General-Assistant  Rankin  over  the  whole  work 
and  is  in  these  words:  "  Every  preacher  who  acts  as  an  as- 
sistant \_i.  has  charge  of  a  circuit]  to  send  an  account  of 
the  work  once  in  six  months  to  the  Ganeral  Assistant."  § 


The  administrative  or  executive  business  of  the  Confer- 


///.  Minute  or  Executive  Business. 


*  Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  p.  6;  ed.  of  1813,  p.  6. 
X  Lee,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  p.  48. 


■f  Journal,  I.  45. 
§  Minutes,  p.  6. 


70 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


ence  was  formulated  and  transacted  under  two  questions 
which  have  since  grown  very  familiar,  and  which  may  be 
here  reproduced  in  full: 

"o£«g5.  I.  How  are  the  preachers  stationed? 

'■'Ans. 

"  New  York,  Thomas  Rankin,     )  to  change  in  four 
"  Philadelphia,  George  Shadford,  5  months. 
"  New  Jersey,  John  King,  William  Watters. 

Francis    Asbury,    Robert  Strawbridge, 
Abraham  Whitworth,  Joseph  Yearbry, 
'  Norfolk,  Richard  Wright. 
'  Petersburg,  Robert  Williams. 
'^ues.  2.  What  members  are  there  in  the  society? 
'Ans. 


Baltimore, 


New  York   180 

Philadelphia   180 

New  Jersey   200 


Maryland   5^*^ 

Virginia   100 

(  Preachers,  10. )  

Total  1,160"* 

More  than  half  the  members — six  hundred — it  will  be  no- 
ticed were  in  Virginia  and  Maryland  alone.  These  fig- 
ures put  beyond  dispute  that  Strawbridge  was  the  principal 
founder  of  American  Methodism.  Rankin  had  chosen  the 
wrong  end  of  the  work  for  his  labors,  if  he  wished  to  estab- 
lish a  permanent  and  far-reaching  influence.  Asbury  he 
sent  to  Baltimore,  the  pivotal  city.  In  leadership  and  num- 
bers, the  Methodist  center  of  gravity  was  now  located  in  the 
South. 


*  Minutes,  p.  6. 

Note. — The  constitutional  work  of  the  Conference  of  1773  is  recognized 
in  a  nondescript  volume  entitled  "The  General  Conferences  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  from  1792  to  1896."  See  p.  394.  The  work,  which 
lacks  responsible  authorship,  was  "  prepared  by  a  literary  staff,"  employed  by 
the  Western  Methodist  Book  Concern  and  working  under  the  supervision  of 
one  of  the  book  agents.  It  has  some  value  as  an  index  to  the  Journals  and 
a  convenient  iummary,  but  is  disfigured  by  superficial,  and  sometimes 
flippant,  remarks  and  discussions,  especially  on  the  depression  of  the  epis- 
copacy and  the  elevation  of  the  General  Conference.  See  pp.  250-256.  The 
constitutional  stand  of  McKendree  and  Soule  in  1820  is  described  in  a  sec- 
tion with  the  heading,  "  Facing  Down  a  Conference." 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  RANKIN's  AD- 
MINISTRATION IN  1777. 

/.  The  Conference  of  1774. 

THE  Second  Annual  Conference  assembled  as  before  in 
Philadelphia,  Wednesday,  May  25,  1774,  and  adjourned 
Friday,  May  27.  General- Assistant  Rankin  occupied  the 
chair,  managed  the  business,  and  made  the  appointments. 

In  this  second  session,  it  is  easy  to  discern  that  the  body 
is  settling  down  to  what  subsequently  became  the  routine 
minute  business  of  Annual  Conferences,  the  answers  to  six 
of  the  ordinary  disciplinary  questions  being  recorded.  The 
first  session  was  extraordinary.  It  had  much  to  do  in  the 
way  of  general  review  and  final  settlement  of  what  some  of 
the  irregulars  might  have  been  disposed  to  view  as  open 
questions.  Enactments,  such  as  we  have  ventured  to  style 
constitutional  agreements,  in  view  of  their  fundamental  and 
permanent  character,  disappear  from  the  record  of  business 
transacted  at  the  Second  Conference ;  confirming  once  more 
the  view  that  such  action  by  no  means  fell  within  the  scope 
of  the  ordinary  powers  of  the  body,  but  was  proposed  by  Mr. 
Rankin,  as  the  newly-arrived  plenipotentiary  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
in  the  initial  Conference,  that  there  might  be  from  the  begin- 
ning a  free,  full,  and  frank  understanding  of  the  relations  of 
the  Americans  to  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  English,  and  that  the 
preachers  then  in  connection,  or  afterward  to  be  received, 
might  be  informed  of  the  conditions  under  which  member- 
ship in  the  Conference  could  be  held,  the  violation  of  which 
would  issue  in  the  withdrawal  of  fellowship  from  them, 
"  till  they  change  their  conduct." 

The  six  "  Questions  "propounded  and  answered  were  as 
follows : 

(71) 


72 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


"  Ques.  I.  Who  are  admitted  [/'.  e.,  into  full  connection] 
this  year? 

"  Ques.  2.  Who  are  admitted  on  trial? 

"Ques.  3.  Who  are  Assistants  \_i.  e.,  superintendents  of 
circuits,  or  preachers  in  charge]  this  year? 

"  Ques.  4.  Are  there  any  objections  to  any  of  the  Preach- 
ers? 

"  Ques.  5.  How  are  the  preachers  stationed  this  year? 

"  Ques.  6.  What  numbers  are  there  in  Society?" 

Five  preachers  are  admitted  into  full  connection,  and 
seven  on  trial.  Rankin's  name  appears  first  on  the  roll  of 
Assistants  and  Asbury's  immediately  follows,  Shadford's  be- 
ing third.  The  answer  to  Ques.  4  has  since  become  stereo- 
typed, "They  were  examined  one  by  one."  There  were 
seventeen  preachers,  with  a  total  of  2,073  members  in  So- 
ciety, of  whom  738  were  reported  from  Baltimore,  and  1,063 
from  Maryland — more  than  half  of  the  denomination  being  in 
this  state.  Brunswick  Circuit  reported  218  members  against 
204  in  Philadelphia  and  222  in  New  York.  The  increase  in 
the  whole  work  had  been  nearly  a  thousand  members,  a  re- 
sult largely  due  to  the  efficiency  of  Rankin's  administration. 
Asbury  was  appointed  to  New  York  (apparently,  as  we  shall 
see,  against  his  will,  as  he  desired  to  labor  in  Baltimore) 
and  Rankin  to  Philadelphia,  these  two  to  exchange  at  the 
end  of  the  first  quarter.  Shadford  was  placed  in  charge  of 
the  Baltimore  Circuit,  with  Dromgoole,  (Drumgole  is  the 
spelling  in  the  minutes)  Webster,  and  Lindsay  as  "  help- 
ers." Strawbridge's  name  does  not  appear  on  the  plan. 
Indeed  none  of  Asbury's  "  helpers  "  of  the  preceding  year 
are  returned  to  Baltimore.  Evidently  Rankin  was  stirring 
things,  and  introducing  a  discipline  under  whose  severity 
even  Asbury,  now  in  feeble  health,  smarted.  To  the  list  of 
appointments  this  note  is  appended,  "All  the  preachers  to 
change  at  the  end  of  six  months,"  of  course  as  directed  by 
the  General-Assistant. 

"  The  itinerancy  was  under  a  stern  regimen  at  that  day. 
Hitherto,  as  we  have  seen,  it  transferred  the  preachers  from 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777. 


73 


New  York  to  Philadelphia  every  four  months;  now  it  was 
more  rigorous  toward  the  laborers  of  the  cities  than  before, 
for  while  the  preachers  on  the  country  circuits  exchanged 
semi-annually,  those  of  Philadelphia  and  New  York  ex- 
changed quarterly.  The  itinerancy  was  prized  not  only  as 
affording  variety  of  ministerial  gifts  to  the  Societies,  but  as 
a  sort  of  military  drill  to  the  preachers.  It  kept  them  ener- 
getic by  keeping  them  in  motion.  No  great  captain  has  ap- 
proved of  long  encampments.  The  early  Methodist  itiner- 
ants were  an  evangehcal  cavalry;  they  were  always  in  the 
saddle;  if  not  in  line  of  battle,  yet  skirmishing  and  pioneer- 
ing ;  a  mode  of  life  which  conduced  not  a  little  to  that  chiv- 
alric  spirit  and  heroic  character  which  distinguished  them  as 
a  class.  The  system  speedily  killed  off  such  as  were  weak 
in  body,  and  drove  off  such  as  were  feeble  in  character;  the 
remnant  were  the  '  giants  of  those  days  '  morally,  very  often 
intellectually,  and,  to  a  notable  extent,  physically.  Young 
men,  prudently  initiated  into  its  hardships,  acquired  robust 
health,  stentorian  lungs,  and  buoyant  spirits,  '  a  good  hu- 
mor,' a  bon  hommie  which  facilitated  not  a  little  their  access 
to  the  common  people;  but  many  whose  souls  were  equal 
to  their  work  sunk  under  it  physically.  Its  early  records  are 
full,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  of  examples  of  martyrdom."  * 
The  Conference  "  agreed  to  the  following  particulars  " 
in  the  matter  of  rules  and  regulations  touching  the  temporal 
economy  of  the  Church:  "  i.  Every  preacher  who  is  re- 
ceived into  full  connection  is  to  have  the  use  and  property 
of  his  horse,  which  any  of  the  circuits  may  furnish  him  with. 
2.  Every  preacher  to  be  allowed  six  pounds  Pennsylvania 
currency  per  quarter  and  his  traveling  charges  besides.  3. 
For  every  assistant  to  make  a  general  collection  at  Easter  in 
the  circuits  where  they  labor ;  to  be  applied  to  the  sinking  of 
debts  on  the  houses  and  relieving  the  preachers  in  want.  4. 
Wherever  Thomas  Rankin  spends  his  time  he  is  to  be  as- 
sisted by  those  circuits."  t 

*  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  I.  230,  231. 
For  all  the  preceding,  see  Minutes,  ed.  1795,  pp.  9-11 ;  ed.  1813,  pp.  7,  8. 


74 


American  Methodism  to  178/f.. 


At  the  Quarterly  Conference  which  Asbury  held  on  the 
western  shore  of  Maryland,  Dec.  23,  1772,  it  will  be  re- 
membered that  Brother  Strawbridge  (a  married  man)  was 
allowed  £8  quarterage,  and  Brother  Asbury  and  Brother 
King  £6  each.  The  Annual  Conference,  it  appears  from 
Regulation  2,  now  relieved  the  Quarterly  Conferences  of 
this  responsibility,  and  assumed  jurisdiction  of  the  matter  of 
fixing  the  compensation  of  the  laborers  in  the  vineyard,  plac- 
ing all  the  preachers  on  a  uniform  basis  of  support.  So  this 
financial  arrangement  continued  for  many  years  afterward. 
Not  until  quite  late  in  the  history  of  the  Church  was  this 
primitive  jurisdiction  of  the  Quarterly  Conference  restored, 
and  the  principle  established  that  those  who  pay  shall  deter- 
mine what  is  necessary  for  the  support  of  the  ministry,  and 
what  they  are  able  to  contribute.  In  this  rule,  also,  appears 
the  distinction  between  "quarterage"  and  "traveling  ex- 
penses "  which  has  hardly  yet  become  extinct,  the  writer  of 
these  pages  having  had  his  traveling  expenses  to  his  last  ap- 
pointment allowed  by  the  stewards. 

The  Quarterly  Conference  is  the  body  of  supreme  author- 
ity and  jurisdiction  in  the  local  Church :  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence originally  exercised  general  supervision  until  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  was  developed  from  it  by  processes  which 
will  be  fully  noticed  in  the  progress  of  our  history.  In  En- 
gland there  is  still  but  a  single  Conference  supervising  the 
whole  work.    It  meets  annually. 

In  the  third  rule,  we  see  the  germs  (i)  of  the  Church- 
extension  fund  and  (  2 )  of  the  Conference  collection.  Build- 
ing church-houses  soon  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  the 
business  of  the  local  society,  and  the  general  collection  for 
paying  debts  on  chapels  and  meeting-houses  disappeared. 
But  the  organization  of  Church-extension  Boards  is  only  a 
reversion  to  the  primitive  type.  The  principle  of  community 
of  interest  and  obligation,  even  in  the  erection  of  local 
houses  of  worship,  was  recognized  in  the  beginning  and  re- 
appears at  last  in  more  formal  appliances  and  organizations. 

In  the  fourth  regulation  we  discover  the  beginnings  of  the 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  ijjy. 


75 


Bishops'  Fund.  It  makes  little  difference  whether  the  per- 
son exercising  a  general  superintendency  is  known  as  Gen- 
eral-Assistant, Superintendent,  Presiding-elder,  or  Bishop; 
his  relation  to  the  work  is  practically  the  same.  Mr.  Ran- 
kin sustained  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment  such  a  general 
relation  to  the  whole  work.  His  claim  for  support  was  ac- 
cordingly placed  on  a  general  basis. 

General-Assistant  Rankin  gives  the  following  account  of 
the  Conference  session:  "Everything  considered,  we  had 
reason  to  bless  God  for  what  he  had  done  in  about  ten 
months.  Above  a  thousand  members  are  added  to  the  So- 
cieties, and  most  of  these  have  found  peace  with  God.  We 
now  labor  in  the  provinces  of  New  York,  the  Jerseys,  Penn- 
sylvania, Maryland,  and  Virginia.  We  spoke  our  minds 
freely,  one  to  another  in  love;  and  whatever  we  thought 
would  further  the  work  we  most  cheerfully  embraced.  We 
had  now  more  than  seventeen  preachers  to  be  employed  the 
ensuing  year,  and  upward  of  two  thousand  members,  with 
calls  and  openings  into  many  fresh  places.  We  stationed  the 
preachers  as  well  as  we  could,  and  all  seemed  to  be  satisfied." 

Ex-Assistant  Asbury  says:  "Wednesday  25.  Our  Con- 
ference began.  The  overbearing  spirit  of  a  certain  person 
had  excited  my  fears.  My  judgment  was  stubbornly  op- 
posed for  a  while,  and  at  last  submitted  to.  But  it  is  my  duty 
to  bear  all  things  with  a  meek  and  patient  spirit.  Our  Confer- 
ence was  attended  with  great  power;  and,  all  things  consid- 
ered, with  great  harmony.  We  agreed  to  send  Mr.  W. 
[Wright]  to  England ;  and  all  acquiesced  in  the  future  stations 
of  the  preachers.  My  lot  was  to  go  to  New  York,  My 
body  and  mind  have  been  much  fatigued  during  the  time  of 
this  Conference.  And  if  I  were  not  deeply  conscious  of 
the  truth  and  goodness  of  the  cause  in  which  I  am  engaged, 
I  should  by  no  means  stay  here.  Lord !  what  a  world  is 
this!  yea,  what  a  religious  world!  O  keep  my  heart  pure, 
and  my  garments  unspotted  from  the  world  I  Our  Confer- 
ence ended  on  Friday  with  a  comfortable  intercession."  * 


♦Journal,  1.  81. 


76 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


Dr.  Bangs'  comment  is  that  Rankin,  in  the  faithful  exer- 
cise of  his  superintendency,  "  set  himself  to  purifying  the 
societies  from  corrupt  members  and  restoring  things  to  or- 
der," and  "it  was  soon  found  that  the  discharge  of  this 
duty,  however  painful,  instead  of  abridging  the  influence  of 
ministerial  labor,  greatly  extended  it,  and  exerted  a  most 
salutary  effect  upon  the  societies."  * 

Dr.  Stevens  also  records  some  judicious  observations  on 
the  methods  and  results  of  Rankin's  administration  at  this 
juncture:  "The  disciplinary  views  of  Rankin,  enforced 
during  the  preceding  year,  upon  the  preachers  and  Societies, 
with  a  rigor  which  seemed  to  some  of  them  hardly  tolerable, 
had  produced  salutary  effects  generally,  as  evinced  by  the 
growing  efficiency  of  the  denomination  and  an  unexpected 
increase  of  its  members.  It  had  been  regulated  and  consoli- 
dated and  now  presented  generally  an  attitude  of  strength 
which  gave  assurance  of  a  prosperous  future.  Rankin  in- 
sisted with  English  firmness,  if  not  obstinacy,  that  the  method 
of  procedure  established  in  the  British  Conference  should  be 
rigorously  followed  by  the  present  session.  The  principles 
of  his  administration  were  good,  and  necessary  for  the  infant 
Church ;  but  he  seems  to  have  been  unhappy  in  his  official 
manners.  He  had  not  the  tact  of  Asbury  to  adapt  himself 
to  the  free  and  easy  spirit  of  the  Americans,  whose  demo- 
cratic colonial  training  had  thrown  off  punctiliousness  with- 
out impairing  their  energy  and  devotion  to  general  order. 
Even  Asbury  hesitated  at  his  rigor,  but  was  conciliated  by 
seeing  his  own  judgment  followed  in  detail,  though  '  stub- 
bornly opposed  '  at  first."  t 

The  "  certain  person  "  referred  to  in  the  extract  from 
Asbury' s  Journal  is  undoubtedly  Rankin.  We  cannot  now 
determine  what  were  the  precise  differences  between  them. 
So  far  as  these  differences  concerned'  the  business  of  the 
Conference,  Asbury  prevailed;  so  far  as  they  related  to 
Asbury' s  appointment,  Rankin  moved  him  from  Baltimore 
to  New  York,  to  exchange  in  three  months  with  him- 


*Hist.  M.  E.  Church,  I.  80,  81.    tHist.  M.  E.  Church,  I.  227,  228. 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777. 


77 


self  at  Philadelphia.  Asbury  on  the  floor  was  more  than  a 
match  for  Rankin  in  the  chair,  since  "his  judgment  was  at 
last  submitted  to."  He  could  afford  to  be  "meek  and  pa- 
tient" as  regards  his  appointment,  since  his  official  superior 
was  guided  by  his  better  knowledge  of  the  work  and  its 
needs.  Let  us  judge  Rankin,  however,  by  results,  and  ac- 
cord him  his  due  meed  of  praise.  His  own  Journal  as  well 
as  Asbury' s  reveals  that  he  was  often  discouraged  and  de- 
spondent. In  '73,  '74,  and  '75,  he  speaks  in  his  Journal  of 
the  assembling  of  the  "little  conference:  "  it  was  in  great 
contrast  with  what  he  had  been  accustomed  to  in  England, 
and  this  day  of  small  things  in  America  was  a  disappoint- 
ment to  him.  But  he  clung  to  his  mission  and,  if  not  al- 
ways with  the  best  grace,  yet  with  persistence  and  success, 
he  carried  forward  the  administration  on  Wesleyan  lines. 

The  aUenation  between  him  and  Asbury,  however,  contin- 
ued. The  following  extracts  from  Asbury's  Journal  in  the 
autumn  of  1774  reveal  its  existence,  and  something  of  its 
nature : 

"Friday,  Nov.  2.  Mr.  R.  came  to  BurHngton  to-day,  and 
desired  me  to  go  to  Philadelphia.  So,  after  preaching  in 
the  evening  from  Prov.  xxviii.  13,  I  set  off  the  next  morning 
for  the  city;  and  found  the  Society  in  the  spirit  of  love. 

"  Lord's-day  4.  I  preached  twice  with  some  freedom. 
The  next  day  my  mind  was  in  a  sweet,  calm  frame,  and  I 
felt  a  strong  determination  to  devote  myself  wholly  to  God 
and  his  service.  I  spoke  my  mind  to  Mr.  R.,  but  we  did  not 
agree  in  judgment.  And  it  appeared  to  me,  that  to  make 
any  attempt  to  go  to  Baltimore  would  be  all  in  vain  \_{.  e., 
against  the  will  of  the  General-Assistant,  as  the  next  entry 
shows]. 

"Tuesday  6.  Visited  some  of  my  friends  in  the  city  [of 
Philadelphia]  ;  and  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wesley,  which  I 
read  to  Mr.  R.  that  he  might  see  I  intended  no  guile  or  secret 
dealings.  It  is  somewhat  grievous  that  he  should  prevent 
my  going  to  Baltimore,  after  being  acquainted  with  my  en- 
gagements and  the  importunities  of  my  friends  there.   .   .  . 


78 


American  Methodism  to  178^. 


The  next  day  Mr.  R.  appeared  to  be  very  kind ;  so  I  hope 
all  things  will  give  place  to  love. 

"  Lord's-day  II.  Mr.  R.  preached  a  close  sermon  on 
the  neglect  of  public  worship 

"Wednesday  14.  Mr.  R.  was  sick,  and  Captain  W.  was 
busy,  so  I  spent  my  time  in  study  and  devotion.  .  .  .  But 
what  need  can  there  be  for  two  preachers  here  to  preach 
three  times  a  week  to  about  sixty  people?  This  is  indeed 
a  very  gloomy  prospect. 

"  Lord's-day  18.  My  soul  was  happy  while  preaching  in 
the  morning.  Mr.  S.  gave  us  an  old  piece  at  Church;  and 
Mr.  R.  was  very  furious  in  the  evening  [presumably  vio- 
lent in  preaching]. 

"  Friday  23.  In  the  evening  I  preached  from  these  words, 
'  Neither  give  place  to  the  devil : '  and  believe  it  was  good 
for  some  that  they  were  present. 

"  Monday,  Jan.  2,  [1775].  At  Mr.  B.'s,  where  we  dined 
to-day,  I  was  much  grieved  at  the  manner  of  Mr.  R.'s  con- 
versation: but  let  it  be  a  caution  to  me  to  be  prudent  and 
watchful. 

"  Lord's-day  8.  A  letter  from  my  friend  W.  L.  informed 
me  that  three  of  my  friends  were  coming  to  conduct  me,  if 
possible,  to  Baltimore.  But  it  is  a  doubt  with  me  if  I  shall, 
with  consent,  be  permitted  to  go. 

"  On  Monday  the  30th  some  letters  came  from  Baltimore 
earnestly  pressing  me  to  go.  And  Mr.  R.  was  so  kind  as  to 
visit  me  [Asbury  was  sick]  ;  when  all  was  sweetness  and  love. 

"Thursday  16  [Feb.].  R.  S.  [Robert  Strawbridge] 
wrote  me  a  letter  with  his  usual  kindness;  and  informed  me 
that  Mr.  D.  concurred  in  sentiment  relative  to  my  going  to 
Baltimore.  And  it  is  thought  by  many,  that  there  will  be  an 
alteration  in  the  affairs  of  our  Church  government. 

"  Saturday  26.  I  packed  up  my  clothes  in  order  to  depart 
on  Monday  morning  for  Baltimore. 

"  Thursday,  March  2.  We  then  pursued  our  journey  to 
Baltimore.  The  next  day  I  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  our 
new  house.    Here  are  all  my  own  with  increase. 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777- 


19 


*'  Lord's-day  12.  I  saw  Brother  S.  and  entered  into  a  free 
conversation  with  him.  His  sentiments  relative  to  Mr.  R. 
corresponded  with  mine.  But  allthese  matters  I  can  silently 
commit  to  God,  who  overrules  both  in  earth  and  heaven."  * 

These  extracts  abundantly  indicate  that  Asbury  was  deep' 
ly  dissatisfied  that  Mr.  Rankin  would  not  permit  him  to  re 
turn  to  labor  in  Baltimore.  Both  were  good  men.  We 
have  now  no  means  of  judging  of  the  merits  of  Mr.  Rankin's 
appointments.  Rankin  was  firm.  Asbury  was  not  inclined 
to  yield.  He  submitted  the  case  to  Mr.  Wesley;  but  frank- 
ly showed  his  letter  to  Rankin  before  sending  it.  Asbury 
took  the  matter  so  seriously  that  he  began  to  anticipate,  with 
others,  "  an  alteration  in  the  affairs  of  our  Church  govern- 
ment." It  will  be  remembered  that  under  the  Boardman 
administration  he  had  declared,  "  I  have  not  yet  the  thing  I 
seek — a  circulation  of  preachers  to  avoid  partiality  and  pop- 
ularity. I  am  fixed  to  the  Methodist  plan.  I  am  deter- 
mined to  make  a  stand  against  all  partiality."  But  it  looks  a 
little  as  if  it  was  difficult  for  him,  under  Rankin,  to  take  his 
own  prescription.  His  friends  were  continually  beseeching 
him  by  letter  and  embassy  to  come  to  Baltimore.  At  last, 
before  the  meeting  of  the  next  Conference,  he  "packed 
up"  and  went;  whether  with  or  without  the  "  consent"  of 
the  General-Assistant  we  are  not  told. 

Rankin  also  wrote  to  Wesley.  "  It  was  Asbury 's  misfor- 
tune as  long  as  Wesley  lived,"  says  Bishop  McTyeire,  "  to 
be  misrepresented  to  him  by  weak  but  well-meaning  men 
whom  he  overshadowed,  or  by  designing  men  whom  he 
overruled."!  As  a  general  proposition  this  is  perhaps  true. 
It  is  also  true  that  by  every  token  and  standard  Asbury  was 
a  greater  man  than  Rankin,  better  adapted  to,  and  better 
acquainted  with,  the  American  work.  But  in  this  affair  of 
his  Baltimore  appointment,  Asbury  himself  made  the  appeal 
to  Wesley  against  the  legitimate  authority,  whether  wisely 
or  unwisely  exercised,  of  his  American  representative.  In 
his  reply  to  Rankin  under  date  of  March  i,  1775,  Mr.  Wes- 

*  Asbury's  Journal,  1. 101-109  (extracts),   -j-  McTyeire,  Hist,  of  Metli.,  p.  285. 


8o 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


ley  says:  "As  soon  as  possible,  you  must  come  to  a  full  and 
clear  explanation,  both  with  brother  Asbury  (if  he  is  re- 
covered )  and  with  Jemmy  Dempster.  But  I  advise  brother 
Asbury  to  return  to  England  the  first  opportunity."  * 

The  Revolution  was  coming  on;  the  preachers  were  in 
danger  of  pohtical  entanglements;  Mr.  Wesley  inclosed  in 
his  communication  to  the  General-Assistant  a  letter  to  all 
the  preachers,  whose  pertinency  and  wisdom  in  those  troub- 
lous times  warrants  its  reproduction  here  : 

"  London,  March  i,  1775. 

^^My  dear  Brethren:  You  were  never  in  your  lives  in  so 
critical  a  situation  as  you  are  at  this  time.  It  is  your  part  to 
be  peace  makers;  to  be  loving  and  tender  to  all;  but  to  ad- 
dict yourselves  to  no  party.  In  spite  of  all  solicitations,  of 
rough  or  smooth  words,  say  not  one  word  against  one  or  the 
other  side.  Keep  yourselves  pure;  do  all  you  can  to  help 
and  soften  all;  but  beware  how  you  adopt  another's  jar. 

"  See  that  you  act  in  full  union  with  each  other:  this  is 
of  the  utmost  consequence.  Not  only  let  there  be  no  bit- 
terness or  anger,  but  no  shyness  or  coldness,  between  you. 
Mark  all  those  that  would  set  one  of  you  against  the  other. 
Some  such  will  never  be  wanting.  But  give  them  no  coun- 
tenance ;  rather  ferret  them  out,  and  drag  them  into  open  day. 

"The  conduct  of  T.  Rankin  has  been  suitable  to  the 
Methodist  plan:  I  hope  all  of  you  tread  in  his  steps.  Let 
your  eye  be  single.  Be  in  peace  with  each  other,  and  the 
God  of  peace  will  be  with  you. 

"I  am,  my  dear  brethren, 

"  Your  affectionate  brother, 

"John  Wesley."  t 

April  21,  1775,  Wesley  writes  Rankin  again,  "  Brother 
Asbury  has  sent  me  a  few  lines,  and  I  thank  him  for  them. 
But  I  do  not  advise  him  to  go  to  Antigua.  Let  him  come 
home  without  delay.  If  one  or  two  stout,  healthy  young 
men  would  willingly  offer  themselves  to  that  service,  I 
should  have  no  objection."  $    Again,  May  19,  1775,  he 


*  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  ed.,  VII.  7,  8.    "f  Ibid.    %  Ibid.,  p.  9. 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777.  8i 

writes,  "  I  doubt  not  but  Asbury  and  you  will  part  friends: 
I  shall  hope  to  see  him  at  the  [English]  Conference.  He  is 
quite  an  upright  man.  I  apprehend  he  will  go  through  his 
work  more  cheerfully  when  he  is  within  a  little  distance 
from  me."*  July  28,  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "  I  rejoice,  too, 
over  honest  Francis  Asbury,  and  hope  he  will  no  more  enter 
into  temptation."  Finally,  Aug.  13,  when  he  had  learned 
of  Asbury's  appointment  for  another  year's  labor,  Wesley 
writes,  "  I  am  not  sorry  that  Brother  Asbury  stays  with  you 
another  year.  In  that  time  it  will  be  seen  what  God  will  do 
with  North  America,  and  you  will  easily  judge  whether  our 
preachers  are  called  to  remain  any  longer  therein.  If  they 
are,  God  will  make  their  way  plain,  and  give  them  favor 
even  with  the  men  that  delight  in  war."  t 

And  so  the  matter  ended.  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  his 
letter  of  April  21,  Wesley  advises  against  Asbury's  going  to 
Antigua — partly,  no  doubt,  on  account  of  his  feeble  health. 
It  appears  that  previously  he  had  favored  the  project.  So 
this  extract  from  Asbury's  Journal  implies:  "  Wednesday  23 
[Feb.  1775].  I  received  a  letter  from  Miss  G.  [Gilbert], 
at  Antigua,  in  which  she  informed  me  that  Mr.  G.  [Francis 
Gilbert]  was  going  away ;  and  as  there  are  about  three  hun- 
dred members  in  society,  she  entreats  me  to  go  and  labor 
amongst  them.  And  as  Mr.  Wesley  has  given  his  consent, 
I  feel  inclined  to  go,  and  take  one  of  the  young  men  with 
me.  But  there  is  one  obstacle  in  my  way — the  administra- 
tion of  the  ordinances.  It  is  possible  to  get  the  ordination 
of  a  presbytery;  but  this  would  be  incompatible  with  Meth- 
odism; which  would  be  an  effectual  bar  in  my  way."  X 

Upon  the  possible  consequences  of  this  early  removal  of 
the  Apostle  of  American  Methodism  it  is  useless  to  speculate: 
more  important  is  it  to  note,  in  view  of  his  subsequent  ordi- 
nation as  Deacon,  Elder,  and  Bishop,  that  this  Episcopalian, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  force  of  Strawbridge's  exam- 
ple, did  not  regard  the  "ordination  of  a  presbytery"  as 
compatible  with  Methodism. 

♦Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  ed.,  VII.  9.    j  Page  11.    J  Journal,  I.  107. 
6 


82 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


II.  The  Conference  of  1775. 

The  Third  Annual  Conference  assembled  as  before  under 
the  presidency  of  Mr.  Rankin  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
Wednesday,  May  17,  1775,  and  adjourned  Friday  the  19th. 
It  followed  by  a  few  months  the  session  of  the  Colonial  Con- 
gress in  the  same  city.  The  same  questions  are  asked  in 
the  same  order  as  at  the  preceding  Conference,  with  the 
omission  of  Question  4;  though  the  preachers,  of  course, 
passed  an  examination  of  character.  "  Question  5.  What 
numbers  are  there  in  Society?"  was  answered  as  follows: 
"New  York,  200;  Philadelphia,  190;  New  Jersey,  300; 
Chester,  74;  Kent,  253;  Baltimore,  840;  Frederick,  336; 
Fairfax,  30;  Norfolk,  125;  Brunswick,  800:"  the  total  was 
3,148,  with  nineteen  preachers. 

In  the  list  of  appointments,  James  Dempster  appears  as  the 
Assistant  at  New  York;  Martin  Rodda,  at  Baltimore; 
George  Shadford,  on  the  Brunswick  work,  with  William 
Glendenning  among  his  "helpers;"  Asbury  is  sent  alone 
to  Norfolk,  and  Strawbridge's  name  again  appears  as  a 
"helper  "  on  the  Frederick  work,  of  which  WilUam  Wat- 
ters  is  preacher  in  charge. 

At  the  close  of  the  list  of  appointments  are  the  following 
directions  and  agreements: 

"  Thomas  Rankin  is  to  travel  till  the  month  of  December, 
and  then  take  a  quarter  in  New  York. 

"  The  preachers  in  New  Jersey  to  change  in  one  quarter 

"  Webster  and  Cooper  to  change  with  Gatch  and  Watters 
at  the  end  of  six  months. 

"  The  preachers  in  Brunswick  and  Hanover,  to  change  as 
the  Assistant  thinks  proper. 

"Thomas  Rankin's  deficiencies  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
yearly  collection. 

"  The  preachers'  expenses  from  Conference  to  their  cir- 
cuit to  be  paid  out  of  the  yearly  collection. 

"A  general  fast  for  the  prosperity  of  the  work,  and  for 
the  peace  of  America,  on  Tuesday,  the  i8th  of  July."  * 


*  Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  pp.  13-15;  ed.  of  1813,  pp.  9,  10. 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777. 


83 


The  Conference  collection,  it  will  be  noticed,  was  now 
burdened  with  the  deficiencies  in  the  General- Assistant's 
support,  and  with  the  expenses  of  the  preachers  from  the 
seat  of  the  Conference  to  their  circuits. 

The  names  of  three  new  English  preachers  appear  on 
the  Conference  roll:  Rodda  and  Dempster  were  new  mis- 
sionaries who  had  arrived  at  New  York  in  the  autumn 
of  1774,  and  had  relieved  Asbury  at  John  Street,  when  he 
joined  Rankin  at  Philadelphia  and  was  anxious  to  proceed 
still  further  south.  Glendenning  appears  to  have  accom- 
panied them  as  a  volunteer,  as  Yearbry  did  Rankin  and 
Shadford.  Dempster  and  Glendenning  finally  abandoned 
Methodism;  and  Rodda  left  the  country  on  account  of  po- 
Htical  imprudences. 

Of  the  Conference,  Rankin  says,  "  We  conversed  togeth- 
er and  concluded  our  business  in  love.  We  wanted  all  the 
advice  and  light  we  could  obtain  respecting  our  conduct  in 
the  present  critical  situation  of  affairs.  We  came  unani- 
mously to  this  conclusion,  to  follow  the  advice  that  Mr. 
Wesley  and  his  brother  had  given  us,*  and  leave  the  event 
to  God." 

Brother  Asbury  was  gratified  with  a  "  circulation  of 
preachers,"  for  he  was  sent,  not  to  Baltimore  but  to  Norfolk, 
a  feeble  and  undisciplined  Society.  "  From  Wednesday 
till  Friday  we  spent  in  Conference,"  he  says,  "with  great 
harmony  and  sweetness  of  temper."  He  departed  for  his 
new  work  uncomplainingly  and  with  the  hopefulness  of  a 
true  Methodist  preacher:  "  I  am  now  bending  my  course 
towards  Norfolk  to  preach  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  to 
perishing  sinners  there.  .  .  .  With  a  thankful  heart  I  land- 
ed at  Norfolk."  t  And  at  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth  he  did 
a  good  work.  He  reports  finding  only  "  30  persons  in  so- 
ciety after  their  manner;  but  they  had  no  regular  class- 
meetings."  One  hundred  and  twenty-five  members  had 
been  reported  at  the  Conference:  so  even  in  those  days 
there  was  some  looseness  all  around.    However,  he  men- 


See  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  ed.,  vii.  8,  with  footnote,    f  Journal,  I.  114. 


84 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


tions  preaching  to  150  souls  immediately  on  his  arrival 
and  having  an  audience  of  50  at  5  o'clock  in  the  morning.* 

///.  The  Conference  of  1776. 

For  the  first  time  the  Conference  met  in  the  city  of  Balti- 
more, Tuesday,  May  21,  1776,  Rankin  presiding  as  usual.  It 
was  held  in  Lovely  Lane  Chapel,  the  second  Methodist 
house  of  worship  built  in  the  city. 

Five  preachers  were  admitted  into  full  connection,  and 
nine  on  trial,  among  whom  were  Freeborn  Garrettson  and 
Francis  Poythress.  "  I  attended,"  says  Garrettson,  "  passed 
through  an  examination,  was  admitted  on  trial,  and  my 
name  was,  for  the  first  time,  classed  among  the  Methodists; 
I  received  of  Mr.  Rankin  a  written  license."  Poythress, 
Asbury,  in  1797,  nominated  for  the  episcopate.  Nine  preach- 
ers are  named  as  Assistants,  the  first  four  being  Thomas  Ran- 
kin, Francis  Asbury,  Martin  Rodda,  and  George  Shadford; 
Rankin,  however,  left  his  own  name  off  the  list  of  regular  ap- 
pointments, partly,  perhaps,  because  his  general  duties  no 
longer  admitted  of  his  giving  a  definite  period  of  service  to 
any  circuit,  and  partly  because  the  war  of  the  Revolution  was 
making  his  stay  in  America  uncertain.  Asbury  is  again  ap- 
pointed superintendent  of  the  Baltimore  circuit.  4,921  mem- 
bers are  reported  in  Society,  of  whom  1,611  are  from  Bruns- 
wick, 900  from  Baltimore,  and  683  from  North  Carolina. 
In  the  north  there  is  a  falling  off.  New  York  reporting  but 
132,  Philadelphia  but  137,  and  New  Jersey  150:  this  is 
largely  due  to  the  war,  military  operations  pressing  heavily 
upon  those  regions.  Twenty-four  preachers  receive  ap- 
pointments: with  the  General- Assistant,  there  were  twenty- 
five  itinerants.  July  26th  is  appointed  a  day  of  general 
fasting,  t 

Of  the  Conference,  Watters  says,  "  We  were  of  one  heart 
and  mind,  and  took  sweet  counsel  together,  not  how  we 
should  get  riches  or  honors,  or  anything  that  this  poor  world 


♦Journal,  I.  114.    -fMinutes,  ed.  of  1795,  pp.  17,  18;  ed.  of  1813,  pp.  11,  12. 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777. 


85 


could  afford  us ;  but  how  we  should  make  the  surest  work 
for  heaven,  and  be  the  instruments  of  saving  others."  * 

Asbury  did  not  attend  the  Conference.  Sunday,  May  5, 
he  is  at  Philadelphia,  but  in  a  dejected  frame  of  mind: 

Lord's-day  12.  Divine  grace  assisted  and  comforted  me 
in  all  the  exercises  of  the  day.  But  the  next  day  I  was 
seized  with  a  severe  chill,  and  was  carried  to  my  lodging 
very  sick;  nevertheless  set  out  the  next  day,  if  possible,  to 
reach  the  Conference :  and  came  to  Chester  that  night. 
Wednesday  15.  Attempted  to  reach  a  quarterly  meeting, 
but  when  I  got  to  the  place  was  obliged  to  go  to  bed. 
Though  the  next  day,  weak  as  I  was,  I  went  and  held  a 

love-feast,  and  afterward  preached  Was  very  unwell 

all  the  Lord's-day,  [Sunday,  May  19]  but  my  great  desire  to 
be  at  Conference  induced  me  to  make  an  attempt,  on  Mon- 
day, to  travel.  But  by  the  time  I  had  rode  three  miles,  I 
found  if  I  traveled,  it  would  be  at  the  hazard  of  my  life :  and 
was  therefore  obliged  to  decline  it,  though  the  disappointment 
was  very  great."  The  next  day  the  Conference  sat.  On 
the  following  Monday  the  sick  itinerant  says,  "  Expecting 
the  preachers  were  on  their  return  from  the  Conference,  I 
appointed  preaching  at  my  lodgings,  but  had  to  preach  m\-- 
self,  to  a  small,  attentive,  tender  company,  and  felt  much 
quickened  in  my  soul.  At  night  brother  R.  arrived  and  in- 
formed me  that  I  was  appointed  for  Baltimore:  to  which  I 
cheerfully  submit,  though  it  seems  to  be  against  my  bodily 
health."  t 

IV.  The  Conference  of  1777. 

The  Fifth  Annual  Conference  convened  "At  a  Preaching- 
House,  near  Deer  Creek,  in  Harford  County,  Maryland," 
Tuesday,  "May  20,  1777."$  Over  this  Conference  Ran- 
kin presided,  as  he  had  over  all  preceding  ones. 

The  Minutes  record  eight  questions,  asked  and  answered. 
The  first  six  are  the  same  in  matter  and  order  as  those  asked 

*  Christian  Exp.  and  Min.  Labors,  1806,  p.  53.    j  Journal,  I.  137,  138. 
JMinutes,  ed.  of  1795,  p.  19;  ed.  of  18:3,  p.  13:  the  day  of  the  week  is 
fixed  by  Asbury's  Journal. 


86 


American  Methodism  to  178^. 


at  the  Conference  of  1774.  "  Question  4.  Are  there  any 
objections  to  any  of  the  Preachers?"  having  been  omitted 
during  two  sessions,  so  far  as  the  Minutes  show,  is  now  re- 
stored. "They  were  examined  one  by  one  "  is  the  answer 
as  before.  Eight  preachers  are  admitted  into  full  connec- 
tion, and  fourteen  on  trial,  among  whom  are  Caleb  B.  Pedi- 
cord,  John  Tunnell,  John  Littlejohn,  Lee  Roy  Cole,  John 
Dickins,  and  Reuben  Ellis.  Fourteen  Assistants,  or  Super- 
intendents of  circuits,  are  named,  of  whom  the  first  seven 
are,  "Thomas  Rankin,  Francis  Asbury,  Martin  Rodda, 
George  Shadford,  Edward  Drumgole,  William  Watters, 
Philip  Gatch;"  but  the  names  of  Rankin  and  Asbury  do 
not  appear  in  the  list  of  appointments:  neither  was  definite- 
ly assigned  to  work.  Before  the  next  Conference  Rankin 
returned  to  England.  Asbury  was  seriously  debating  the 
question.  But  the  same  is  true  of  Rodda  and  Shadford, 
both  of  whom,  like  Rankin,  returned  to  England  before  the 
next  Conference;  yet  they  were  placed  in  charge  of  impor- 
tant circuits,  Kent  and  Baltimore.  Asbury's  failure  to  take 
an  appointment,  therefore,  is  not  fully  explained;  though 
Rankin's  general  duties  excuse  him,  as  at  the  preceding  Con- 
ference. There  were  fifteen  circuits  in  all;  but  New  York 
is  left  without  a  preacher,  doubtless  on  account  of  the  war, 
the  city  being  then  occupied  by  the  British.  There  are  6,- 
968  members  in  Society,  of  whom  1,360  are  reported  from 
Brunswick ;  900  from  Baltimore  ;  930  from  North  Carolina ; 
726  from  Kent;  160  from  New  Jersey;  and  96  each  from 
New  York  and  Philadelphia.  Friday,  July  25,  was  appoint- 
ed as  a  fast-day.  Two  questions  are  appended,  one  touch- 
ing the  consecration  and  steadfastness  of  the  preachers  in 
those  times  that  tried  men's  souls,  and  the  other  concerning 
the  abuse  of  funeral  sermons:  "  ^ues.  7.  As  the  present 
distress  is  such,  are  the  preachers  resolved  to  take  no  step  to 
detach  themselves  from  the  work  of  God  for  the  ensuing 
year?  Ans.  We  purpose,  by  the  grace  of  God,  not  to  take 
any  step  that  may  separate  us  from  the  brethren,  or  from 
the  blessed  work  in  which  we  are  engaged,    ^ues.  8.  Has 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777. 


87 


not  the  preaching  of  funeral  sermons  been  carried  so  far  as 
to  prostitute  that  venerable  custom,  and  in  some  sort  to  ren- 
der it  contemptible  ?  Ans.  Yes :  therefore  let  all  the  preach- 
ers inform  every  society,  that  we  will  not  preach  any  but 
for  those  who  we  have  reason  to  think  died  in  the  fear  and 
favor  of  God."  * 

From  the  Minutes,  it  would  appear  that  this  was  all  the 
business  transacted.  But  there  are  other  contemporaneous 
and  reliable  sources  of  information.  At  this  very  Confer- 
ence, as  we  have  seen,  Philip  Gatch  was  named  an  Assist- 
ant. To  Gatch's  MS.  journal,  Dr.  Leroy  M.  Lee  had  ac- 
cess and  makes  this  extract  of  questions  asked  at  the  Con- 
ference of  1777:  "<=^«e5.  What  shall  be  done  with  respect 
to  the  ordinances?  Ans.  Let  the  preachers  and  people 
pursue  the  old  plan  as  from  the  beginning,  ^ues.  What 
alteration  may  we  make  in  our  original  plan?  Ans.  Our 
next  Conference  will,  if  God  permit,  show  us  more  clear- 

iy-"t 

There  is  other  evidence  that  the  question  of  the  sacra- 
ments was  still  a  burning  one.  Asbury,  whether  designedly 
or  by  seizing  an  unexpected  and  most  favorable  opportunit}'^, 
held  a  "caucus"  before  the  meeting  of  Conference,  and 
outlined  its  business,  as  well  as  made  a  "slate"  of  appoint- 
ments. A  long  note  in  his  Journal  gives  an  account  of  this 
preliminary  meeting,  and  also  most  affecting  details  of 
scenes  at  the  Conference  itself: 

"  Monday  12.  Set  out  for  our  yearly  conference,  and 
having  preached  at  Mr.  P.'s  by  the  way,  came  safe  to  Mr. 
G.'s,  and  was  glad  to  see  the  preachers  who  were  there. 
We  had  some  weighty  conversation  on  different  points :  and 
among  other  things,  it  was  asked  whether  we  could  give  our 
consent  that  Mr.  R.  [Rankin]  should  baptize,  as  there  ap- 
peared to  be  a  present  necessity.  But  it  was  objected  that 
this  would  be  a  breach  of  our  discipline;  and  it  was  not 
probable  that  things  would  continue  long  in  such  a  disor- 
dered state.    The  next  day,  with  great  harmony  and  joint 


Minutes,  1795,  pp.  19-22;  1813,  pp.  14,  15.    |  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  78. 


88 


American  Methodistn  to  1784. 


consent,  we  drew  a  rough  draught  for  stationing  the  preach- 
ers the  ensuing  year.  And  on  Friday  we  conversed  on  the 
propriety  of  signing  certificates  avouching  good  conduct  for 
such  of  the  preachers  as  chose  to  go  to  Europe.  But  I 
could  not  see  the  propriety  of  it  at  this  time.  We  also  con- 
versed on  such  rules  as  might  be  proper  for  the  regulation 
of  the  preachers  who  abide  on  the  continent.  And  it  was 
judged  necessary  that  a  committee  should  be  appointed  to 
superintend  the  whole.  And  on  Monday  we  rode  together 
to  attend  the  Conference  at  Deer-Creek. 

"  So  greatly  has  the  Lord  increased  the  number  of  trav- 
eling preachers  within  these  few  years,  that  we  have  now 
twenty-seven  who  attend  the  circuits,  and  twenty  of  them 
were  present  at  this  conference.  Both  our  public  and  pri- 
vate business  was  conducted  with  great  harmony,  peace, 
and  love.  Our  brethren  who  intend  to  return  to  Europe, 
have  agreed  to  stay  till  the  way  is  quite  open.  Our  Confer- 
ence ended  with  a  love-feast  and  watch-night.  But  when 
the  time  of  parting  came,  many  wept  as  if  they  had  lost 
their  first-born  sons.  They  appeared  to  be  in  the  deepest 
distress,  thinking,  as  I  suppose,  they  should  not  see  the 
faces  of  the  English  preachers  any  more.  This  was  such  a 
parting  as  I  never  saw  before.  ...  A  certificate,  as 
mentioned  above,  had  been  acceded  to,  and  signed  in  the 
Conference."  * 

Part  of  the  prearranged  programme,  it  is  seen,  miscar- 
ried: the  departing  English  preachers  were  granted  certifi- 
cates, which  were  signed  in  open  Conference.  In  view  of 
Rankin's  approaching  departure,  which  would  leave  the 
American  work  without  an  official  head,  government  by  a 
committee,  as  suggested  in  Asbury's  preliminary  meeting, 
was  adopted.  The  Minutes  say  nothing  of  it;  but  this  is 
not  strange:  there  is  satisfactory  evidence,  as  we  have 
seen,  of  their  incompleteness  on  other  heads.  "  There  ap- 
pearing no  probability  of  the  contest  between  Great  Britain 
and  this  country  ending  shortly,"  says  Watters,  "several 


*  Asbury's  Journal,  I.  1S6. 


The  Anmial  Conferences  to  17J7. 


89 


of  our  European  preachers  thought  that,  if  an  opportunity 
should  offer,  they  would  return  to  their  home  in  the  course 
of  the  year.  To  provide  against  such  an  event  five  of  us, 
Gatch,  Dromgoole,  Ruff,  Glendenning,  and  myself,  were 
appointed  a  committee  to  act  in  the  place  of  the  general  as- 
sistant in  case  they  should  all  go  before  the  next  Confer- 
ence. It  was  also  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  this 
Conference  whether  in  our  present  situation,  of  having  but 
few  ministers  left  in  many  of  our  parishes  to  administer  the 
ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  we  should  not 
administer  them  ourselves.  ...  In  fact,  we  considered 
ourselves,  at  this  time,  as  belonging  to  the  Church  of  En- 
gland, it  being  before  our  separation,  and  our  becoming  a 
regularly  formed  Church.  After  much  convei'sation  on  the 
subject,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  to  lay  it  over  for  the  de- 
termination of  the  next  Conference,  to  be  held  in  Leesburg, 
the  19th  of  May."  * 

The  Rev.  John  Lednum,  in  his  History  of  the  Rise  of 
Methodism  in  America,  also  names  the  Committee  of  Con- 
trol: WiUiam  Watters,  Philip  Gatch,  Daniel  Ruff,  Edward 
Dromgoole,  and  William  Glendenning.  f  Watters  as  the 
oldest  native  itinerant  presided  in  the  succeeding  Confer- 
ence of  1778,  and  was  clearly  the  head  of  the  committee  and 
of  the  pro\'isional  government. 

This  government  by  committee,  until  the  distress  of  the 
times  should  be  overpast,  was  doubtless  suggested  by  As- 
bury:  he  carefully  records  it  as  part  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  meeting  held  a  week  before  Conference,  in  which  he 
was  the  master  spirit.  Why  he  was  not  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  committee  is  unaccountable,  unless  American  antag- 
onism to  the  English  made  it  expedient,  if  not  necessary, 
that  an  American  should  be  at  this  time  the  official  head  of 
American  Methodism.  McKendree  became  later  the  first 
American  Bishop:  to  Watters  must  be  given  the  honor  of 
being  the  first  American  chief  of  administration,  exercising, 
with  his  colleagues,  a  superintendency  for  a  time  during  the 
troublous  period  of  the  Revolution.    If  the  unacceptability 


♦Christian  Exp.  and  Min.  Labors,  1806,  pp.  56,  57.    fPage  190. 


90 


American  Methodism  to  178^. 


of  an  English  preacher  was  Asbury's  reason  for  not  taking 
an  appointment  at  this  Conference,  all  the  more  was  it  inex- 
pedient that  he  should  be  appointed  head  of  the  Committee 
of  Control. 

This  completes,  we  believe,  the  sum  total  of  what  is 
known  of  this  important  Conference,  the  last  of  General- 
Assistant  Rankin's  administration.    The  view  that  Asbury's 
disabilities  arose  from  the  political  complications  of  the 
times,  is  rendered  highly  probable,  if  not  certain,  by  his 
Journal:  if  the  prudent  Asbury  was  thus  handicapped  and 
finally  forced  into  retirement,  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  sur- 
prise that  the  other  English  preachers  felt  compelled  to 
leave  the  country.    Thursday,  June  20,    1776,  Asbury 
"went  to  Nathan  Perrig's,  and  was  fined  five  pounds  for 
preaching  the  gospel."  *    Tuesday,  Jan.  21,  1777,  he  re- 
cords: "A  messenger  from  Mr.  G.'s  met  me  at  the  Widow 
B.'s,  informing  me  that  Mr.  R — a  [Rodda]  and  Mr.  G.  S. 
[George  Shadford]  were  there  waiting  to  see  me.  After 
preaching  I  set  out,  and  met  my  brethren  the  same  night, 
and  found  them  inclined  to  leave  America  and  embark  for 
England.    But  I  had  before  resolved  not  to  depart  from  the 
work  on  any  consideration.    After  some  consultation  it 
was  thought  best  that  Mr.  R — a  should  go  to  Mr.  R — n 
[Rankin]  and  request  his  attendance  here."t    March  26, 
he  received  a  letter  from  Shadford  "  intimating  that  accord- 
ing to  rule,  the  time  was  drawing  near  for  us  to  return." 
Asbury  makes  significant  comment,  "  But  St.  Paul's  rule 
is,  that  our  spiritual  children  should  be  in  our  hearts  to  live 
and  die  with  them."  %    His  resolution  "  not  to  depart  from 
the  work  "  began,  however,  to  be  shaken.    Monday,  March 
30,  he  "  was  under  some  exercise  of  mind  in  respect  to  the 
times:  my  brethren  are  inclined  to  leave  the  continent,  and 
I  do  not  know  but  something  may  be  propounded  to  me 
which  would  touch  my  conscience,"  but  April  2,  "Having 
received  information  that  some  of  my  brethren  had  deter- 
mined on  their  departure,  I  wrote  to  Brother  S.  [Shadford] 


*Journal,  I.  141.    ■\Ibid.,  I.  176.    Xlbid.,  I.  182. 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777. 


91 


that  as  long  as  I  could  stay  and  preach  without  injuring 
my  conscience,  it  appeared  as  my  duty  to  abide  with  the 
flock.  But  I  must  confess  that  Satan  has  harassed  me  with 
violent  and  various  temptations."'*  This  is  his  last  entry 
bearing  on  the  subject  before  the  Conference  of  1777.  It 
leaves  the  question  of  remaining  or  departing  unsettled,  but 
with  the  scale  vtry  decidedly  inclined  toward  abiding  with 
the  flock."  Either  (i)  the  probabiHty  of  departure,  or  (2) 
the  unacceptability  of  a  non-juring  English  preacher,  to  the 
civil  authorities  and  partly  to  his  congregations,  constituted  a 
sufficient  reason  for  Asbury's  not  taking  an  appointment, 
and  still  more  for  his  not  being  placed  on  the  Committee  of 
Control.  Yet,  as  we  have  seen,  both  Rodda,  the  most  in- 
judicious and  offensive  of  the  English  preachers,  and  Shad- 
ford,  took  appointments ;  and  Glendenning  was  on  the  Com- 
mittee of  Control.  There  is  an  irreducible  remainder  of 
mystery  in  every  explanation  of  Asbury's  failure  to  take 
work  at  this  Conference,  or  to  be  assigned  to  a  share  in  the 
provisional  government.  That  he  w^as  not  in  close  sympa- 
thy with  the  departing  Englishmen  (except  Shadford,  who 
lingered  to  the  last)  is  evident.  He  was  personally  opposed 
to  granting  them  certificates  of  character  to  be  presented  in 
England  on  their  return.  His  language  implies  that  he 
hardly  shafed  in  the  general  grief  at  parting  with  them  at 
Conference.  '■'■They  [the  other  preachers]  appeared  to  be 
in  the  deepest  distress,  thinking,  as  I  suppose,  they  should 
not  see  the  faces  of  the  English  preachers  any  more." 
Some  lingering  root  of  bitterness  may  have  caused  Rankin 
to  refuse  him,  or  Asbury  to  decline,  work.  If  Rankin  ap- 
pvointed  or  nominated  the  Committee  of  Control,  he  may 
have  designedly  left  off  Asbury's  name. 

About  two  months  after  Conference,  July  21,  1777,  As- 
bury makes  a  sad  entry  in  his  Journal;  "  Heard  Mr.  Ran- 
kin preach  his  last  sermon.  My  mind  was  a  little  dejected; 
and  I  now  felt  some  desire  to  return  to  England,  but  was 
willing  to  commit  the  matter  to  the  Lord."  t    Mr.  Rankin 


♦Journal,  I.  182,  183.    ^; Ibid.,  I.  190. 


92 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


spent  the  winter  in  Philadelphia,  left  the  capes  of  Delaware, 
March  17,  1778,  and  arrived  at  Cork,  April  15. 

After  a  careful  and  candid  survey  of  all  the  material 
facts,  I  am  inclined  to  a  more  favorable  judgment  of  Gener- 
al-Assistant Rankin  and  his  administration  than  our  histori- 
ans generally  have  embodied  in  their  pages.  His  great 
services  in  the  founding  of  American  Methodism  have 
scarcely  been  appreciated  to  the  full.  He  remained  in 
America  more  than  four  years,  faithfully  administering  his 
high  trust  in  the  midst  of  ecclesiastical  difficulties  and  po- 
litical convulsions  which  would  have  speedily  sent  a  weak 
man  flying  from  his  post.  He  convened  the  first  Annual 
Conference,  and  presided  with  dignity,  firmness,  and  much 
wisdom  in  five  of  these  general  assemblies.  He  purified 
and  consolidated  the  American  societies,  conforming  them 
more  closely  to  the  English  disciplinary  model.  When  he 
came  there  were  1,160  members,  with  ten  preachers;  when 
he  departed,  6,968  members,  with  36  preachers.  To  be 
sure,  these  results  were  not  all  due  to  his  personal  labors; 
but  some  men  in  his  position  could  have  cast  ruin  and 
blight  all  about  them:  he  conserved  the  fruits  and  extended 
the  work.  He  retained  the  confidence  and  affection  of 
Wesley,  who  habitually  addresses  him  as  "Dear  Tommy." 
He  made  mistakes;  but  possibly  no  more  and  no  other 
than  were  inseparable  from  his  limitations  as  an  Eng- 
lishman, newly  arrived  in  America.  "  PecuHarities  he 
certainly  had,"  says  a  contemporary,  "which  sometimes 
prevented  his  being  as  useful  as  otherwise  he  would  have 
been."  Asbury  was  in  every  respect  an  abler  man  and, 
as  a  natural  leader,  saw  these  mistakes  clearly.  Even 
in  a  subordinate  position  he  chafed  under  them;  some- 
times he  succeeded  in  overruling  them.  Human  nature 
being  constituted  as  it  is,  this  chafing  was  in  part  un- 
avoidable; but  in  the  matter  of  his  own  appointment  to 
Baltimore,  he  seems,  with  unnecessary  if  not  ill-judged  per- 
sistence, to  have  embarrassed  the  administration  of  his  ec- 
clesiastical superior,  even  though  that  administration  was 


The  Annual  Conferences  to  1777.  93 


confessedly  not  faultless.  So  Mr.  Wesley  judged,  after 
hearing  both  parties  to  the  issue,  and  that  without  impeach- 
ing the  integrity  of  either.  Rankin  departed.  Asbury  re- 
mained; and,  as  the  Apostle  of  American  Methodism,  made 
a  sublime  and  splendid  record  of  suffering  and  achievement, 
hardly  paralleled  since  the  days  of  St.  Paul,  which  has  to- 
tally eclipsed  the  humbler  and  briefer  labors  of  his  faithful 
predecessor  in  the  general  superintendency.  But  the  Amer- 
ican Church  would  dishonor  herself,  should  she  withhold 
his  meed  of  praise  from  Thomas  Rankin,  first  President  of 
an  American  Methodist  Conference,  and  first  General-As- 
sistant,* superintending  the  interests  and  molding  the  des- 
tinies of  our  Methodism.  Appropriately  does  Stevens  grace 
the  first  volume  of  his  great  History  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  with  a  frontispiece  which  reproduces  the  lin- 
eaments of  his  noble  countenance.  We  may  rejoice  for  the 
sake  of  the  departing  Superintendent,  that  his  last  Confer- 
ence was  "  a  season  of  uncommon  affection,"  and  that 
"  when  the  time  of  parting  came,  many  wept  as  if  they  had 
lost  their  firstborn  sons." 

Thus  closed  the  first  period  in  the  history  of  the  American 
Conferences:  the  period  of  close  communication  with  En- 
gland and  of  the  occupancy  of  the  Conference  Chair  by 
Mr.  Wesley's  appointed  delegate  and  representative. 
But  the  war  effectually  cut  off  communication  with  the 
home  office;  and  with  the  Conference  of  1778,  William 
Watters,  the  American,  in  the  Chair,  begins  a  new  era, 
which  continues  till  1784,  when  Mr.  Wesley's  hand  again 
appears  and  his  control  again  asserts  itself. 

This  era,  however,  naturally  divides  itself  into  two  pe- 
riods: the  first  of  discord  and  disunion,  1778-1780;  the  sec- 
ond of  peace  and  prosperity,  1781-1784.  With  these  two 
periods  the  two  chapters  following  will  be  occupied. 


*Boardman  and  Asbury  had  borne  only  the  title  "Assistant,"  the  work 
in  its  infancy  being  regarded  as  a  single  circuit. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


DISCORD  AND  DISUNION:  I778-I780. 

/.  The  Conference  of  1778. 

THE  Sixth  Annual  Conference  convened  at  Leesburg, 
Va.,  May  19,  1778.  The  office  of  General-Assistant 
had  been,  to  use  the  EngHsh  phrase,  "  put  in  commission;" 
and  William  Watters,  the  senior  native  itinerant,  and  the 
chief  of  this  commission,  presided  in  the  Conference.  He 
was  but  twenty-seven  years  of  age  and  modestly  says: 

Having  no  old  preachers  with  us,  we  were  as  orphans  bereft  of  our  spir- 
itual parents;  but  though  young  and  inexperienced  in  business,  the  Lord 
looked  graciously  upon  us,  and  had  the  uppermost  seat  in  all  our  hearts, 
and  of  course  in  our  meeting.  As  the  consideration  of  the  administration  of 
the  ordinances  was  laid  over,  at  the  last  Conference,  till  this,  it  of  course 
came  up  and  found  many  advocates.  It  was  with  considerable  difficulty 
that  a  large  majority  was  prevailed  on  to  lay  it  over  again  till  the  next  Con- 
ference, hoping  that  we  should,  by  that  time,  be  able  to  see  our  -way  more 
clear  in  so  important  a  change.  * 

Watters'  name  is  placed  first  in  the  list  of  Assistants  on 
account  of  his  seniority  and  presidency:  it  thus  stands  in  the 
place  Rankin's  had  filled  in  the  Minutes  of  every  Conference 
since  1774,  when  the  Assistants  were  first  enumerated  under 
a  separate  question. 

This  was  the  first  session  held  in  Virginia,  "  the  chief 
field  of  Methodism,  comprising  nearly  two  thirds  of  its  mem- 
bers."! The  returns  from  the  circuits  are  not  given  in  de- 
tail. The  total  number  of  members  is  6,095.  Only  twenty- 
nine  itinerants  receive  appointments.  It  is  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  American  Methodism  that  the  Minutes  show  a 
decrease  of  ministers  and  members. 

The  following  new  questions  appear: 

Ques.  6.  Who  shall  act  as  general  stewards.'  Ans.  William  Moore,  Hen- 
ry Fry. 

Ques.  7.  What  was  done  with  the  balance  of  the  collection.''  Ans. 
Lodged  with  Henry  Fry. 

•  Christian  Experience  and  Ministerial  Labors,  1806,  pp.  68,  69. 
t  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  43. 

(94) 


Discord  and  Disunion:  1778-1780.  95 


Ques.  8.  What  shall  the  preachers  be  allowed  for  quarterage?  Ans. 
Eight  pounds  Virginia  currency* 

The  depreciation  of  the  currency,  Jesse  Lee  explains, 
brought  about  the  increased  allowance — £32  ;per  annum — 
to  the  preachers.  The  last  Friday  in  August  was  appointed 
for  a  fast  day. 

Stevens  says  there  were  thirty  preachers ;  t  the  Minutes 
say  twenty-nine:  Stevens  includes,  the  Minutes  exclude,  As- 
bury.  He  was  not  present;  he  did  not  receive  an  appoint- 
ment; his  name  does  not  appear  in  the  list  of  Assistants. 
Strictly  speaking  he  was  a  local  preacher.  Of  course  no- 
body supposed  his  retirement  to  be  permanent;  his  connec- 
tion with  the  Conference  was  easily  resumed ;  "supplies," 
as  we  should  call  them  now,  were  so  frequently  called  in 
from  the  local  ranks  that  scarcely  any  distinction  existed  be- 
tween local  and  traveling  preachers ;  moreover,  the  question, 
"  Who  are  located  this  year?  "  or  "  Who  desist  from  travel- 
ing? "  was  not  yet  asked  at  the  Conference  sessions,  so  that 
no  record  of  location  occurs  in  Asbury's  case,  any  more  than 
in  scores  of  others.  Asbury's  position  and  influence  were 
undiminished;  but  at  this  juncture  the  name  of  the  great 
Bishop  disappears  completely  from  the  records  of  the  Annu- 
al Conference.  Officially  speaking,  it  was  now  but  a  slen- 
der thread  that  bound  him  to  American  Methodism. 

Ezekiel  Cooper,  following  Lee,  says,  in  his  Funeral  Dis- 
course for  Asbury,  that  in  March,  1778,  George  Shadford 
and  Mr.  Asbury  observed  a  season  of  fasting  and  prayer, 
to  know  the  will  of  God  concerning  their  withdrawal  from 
America,  and  that  "Shadford  concluded,  and  observed  that 
he  had  an  answer  to  leave  the  country  and  return  to  En- 
gland; but  Asbury,  who  received  an  answer  to  stay,  re- 
plied: '  If  you  are  called  to  go,  I  am  called  to  stay;  so  we 
must  part.'  "  Thus,  then,  and  at  this  comparatively  late 
date,  did  Asbury  reach  his  all-important  decision,  so  fraught 
with  unnumbered  blessings  to  Methodism  and  to  America. 


♦Minutes,  ed.  1795,  p.  25;  ed.  1813,  pp.  i6,  17.    fHist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  11.  44. 


96 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


According  to  Jesse  Lee,  "  Mr.  Asbury  began  to  lie  by  at 
Thomas  White's  in  Delaware,  March  5,  1778."  Asbury 
himself  dated  his  "confinement"  from  March  10,  as  the 
following  entry  under  Saturday,  April  11,  will  show: 

And  I  know  not  what  to  determine,  whether  to  deliver  myself  into  the 
hands  of  men,  to  embrace  the  first  opportunity  to  depart,  or  to  wait  till 
Providence  shall  farther  direct.  The  reason  of  this  retirement  was  as  fol- 
lows: From  March  10,  1778,  on  conscientious  principles  I  was  a  non-juror, 
and  could  not  preach  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  therefore  withdrew  to 
the  Delaware  State,  where  the  clergy  were  not  required  to  take  the  State 
oath,  though  with  a  clear  conscience  I  could  have  taken  the  oath  of  the  Del- 
aware State  had  it  been  required* 

Asbury's  headquarters,  during  his  retirement,  were  at 
Judge  White's,  in  Kent  County,  Delaware.  It  afforded  op- 
portunity for  close  study  and  protracted  devotions,  which  he 
faithfully  improved.  He  was  "confined"  only  about  five 
weeks;  with  the  exception  of  eleven  he  traveled  more  or 
less.  His  improved  treatment  is  supposed  to  have  been  due 
to  the  fact  that  about  1779  "  a  letter  which  he  wrote  to 
Rankin  in  1777,  in  which  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the 
Americans  would  become  a  free  and  independent  nation, 
that  he  was  too  much  knit  in  affection  to  many  of  them  to 
leave  them,  and  that  Methodist  preachers  had  a  great  work 
to  do  under  God,  in  this  country,  had  fallen  into  the  hands 
of  the  American  officers,  and  had  produced  a  great  change 
in  their  opinions  and  feelings  toward  him."  t 

Gatch  and  Garrettson  confirm  the  testimony  of  Watters 
that  the  sacramental  question  was  unanimously  deferred  to 
the  Conference  of  1779.  "  I  was  present,"  says  Mr.  Gar- 
rettson, "  and  the  answer  was,  '  Lay  it  over  until  the  next 
Conference,'  which  was  appointed  to  be  held  in  Fluvanna 
County,  Virginia,  May  18,  1779,  at  what  was  called  the 
Brokenback  Church."  Thus  the  Conference  stood  ad- 
journed to  meet  the  following  year  at  a  designated  time  and 
place.  But  before  that  time  and  at  another  place,  a  Confer- 
ence assembled  whose  proceedings  our  narrative  will  have  to 
take  into  account. 


♦Journal,  I.  208.    ILednum,  p.  226. 


Discord  and  Disunion:  j'j'jS-i'jSo. 


97 


//.  The  Two  Conferences  of  1779 — A  Threatened  Schism: 
A  Conservative  North  versus  A  Progressive  South. 

The  first  Conference  of  tne  year  was  held  at  the  home  of 
Judge  White,  in  Kent  County,  Del.,  beginning  Wednesday, 
April  28.  This  was  done  chiefly  for  the  convenience  of 
Asbury,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  there  confined,  and 
could  not  yet  safely  venture  into  Maryland  and  Virginia. 
He,  doubtless,  presided  and  brought  forward  the  business. 
Of  the  meeting  he  says : 

Our  Conference  for  the  Northern  stations  began  at  Thomas  White's. 
All  our  preachers  on  these  stations  were  present,  and  united.  We  had 
much  prayer,  love,  and  harmony;  and  we  all  agreed  to  walk  by  the  same 
rule  and  to  mind  the  same  thing.  As  we  had  great  reason  to  fear  that  our 
brethren  to  the  southward  were  in  danger  of  separating  from  us,  we  wrote 
them  a  soft,  healing  epistle.  On  these  Northern  stations  we  have  now  about 
seventeen  traveling  preachers.  We  appointed  our  next  Conference  to  be 
held  in  Baltimore  town,  the  last  Tuesday  in  April  next.* 

Postponing  the  questions  of  the  authority  by  which  this 
Conference  was  called  and  of  the  strict  legality  of  its  trans- 
actions, we  first  consider  what  was  done.  "  Ques.  3.  Who 
desist  from  traveling?"  appears  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Minutes  of  this  session.  Trouble  with  the  preachers  of  the 
Southern  and  regular  Conference  is  further  indicated  by  the 
following  pledge  which  the  preachers  present  made,  "  Ques. 
6.  Who  of  the  preachers  are  wilhng  to  take  the  station  this 
Conference  shall  place  them  in,  and  continue  till  next  Con- 
ference?" Sixteen  preachers  sign  this  agreement,  with 
Francis  Asbury  at  their  head,  and  including  such  men  as 
William  Watters,  Freeborn  and  Richard  Garrettson,  Caleb 
B.  Pedicord,  William  Gill,  and  Daniel  Ruff. 

The  authority  of  an  Assistant,  or  preacher  in  charge,  is 
defined  and  formally  increased,  though  these  powers  he  had 
doubtless  long  exercised  by  custom  and  common  consent. 
"No  helper,"  say  the  Minutes,  "is  to  make  any  alteration 
in  the  circuit,  or  appoint  preaching  in  any  new  place,  with- 
out consulting  the  Assistant:  every  exhorter  and  local 
preacher  to  go  by  the  directions  of  the  assistants  where, 


7 


*  Journal,  I.  237,  238. 


98 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


and  only  where  they  shall  appoint,"  Exhorters,  local 
preachers,  and  junior  preachers,  or  "helpers,"  continue 
thus  under  the  direction  of  the  preacher  in  charge,  or  "  as- 
sistant," to  this  day. 

"  Ques.  8.  Why  was  the  Delaware  Conference  held?  "  is 
intended  to  justify  the  somewhat  extraordinary  proceedings 
of  the  Conference.  The  answer  is,  "  For  the  convenience 
of  the  preachers  in  the  Northern  stations,  that  we  all  might 
have  an  opportunity  of  meeting  in  Conference ;  it  being  un- 
advisable  for  brother  Asbury  and  brother  Ruff,  with  some 
others,  to  attend  in  Virginia;  it  is  considered  also  as 
preparatory  to  the  Conference  in  Virginia.  Our  sentiments 
to  be  given  in  by  brother  Watters." 

On  these  points  more  remains  to  be  said.  "  Ques.  10. 
Shall  we  guard  against  a  separation  from  the  Church,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly?"  is  answered  "By  all  means."  The 
final  questions,  which  complete  the  business  of  the  Confer- 
ence, are  quite  remarkable  in  their  character;  especially  if 
these  sixteen  preachers  regarded  themselves  merely  as  a 
preparatory  Conference. 

Ques.  12.  Ought  not  brother  Asburj  to  act  as  General  Assistant  In  Amer- 
ica? He  ought:  1st,  on  account  of  his  age ;  2d,  because  originally  appointed 
by  Mr.  Wesley;  3d,  being  joined  with  Messrs.  Rankin  and  Shadford,  by  ex- 
press order  from  Mr.  Wesley.  Ques.  13.  How  far  shall  his  power  extend? 
On  hearing  every  preacher  for  and  against  what  is  in  debate,  the  right  of 
determination  shall  rest  with  him,  according  to  the  Minutes.* 

When  the  Delaware  Conference  adjourned  the  legal  or 
governmental  situation  is  perhaps  not  inaccurately  described 
as  follows: 

( I )  An  irregular  Conference  composed  of  a  small  minor- 
ity of  preachers  had  been  unexpectedly,  if  not  illegally,  con- 
vened, in  advance  of  the  regular  and  unquestionably  legal 
session.  Watters,  the  only  preacher  who  attended  both  the 
"preparatory"  and  "regular"  sessions,  received  "no  no- 
tice" of  the  irregular  meeting,  but,  hearing  of  it,  "deter- 
mined if  possible  to  get  there,"  that  he  might  persuade 


*For  all  the  preceding,  see  Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  pp.  27-29;  ed.  of  1813, 
pp.  18-20. 


Discord  and  Disunion:  lyjS-iySo.  99 


"Asbury  to  attend  the  regularly  appointed  Conference,  to 
be  held  on  the  i8th  of  May,  1779,  in  Fluvanna  County."* 
Garrettson  calls  it  "a  little  Conference,"  "called  by  the 
Northern  brethren,"  for  their  "convenience,"  and  adds, 
"  In  May,  1779,  the  regular  Conference  was  held,  according 
to  appointment,"  etc.f  If  Watters  was  not  notified,  it  is  not 
likely  that  others  in  the  South  were :  only  those  were  invited, 
it  would  seem,  who  were  known  to  agree  on  the  main  sacra- 
mental point  at  issue.  Asbury  describes  it  as  "a  Confer- 
ence for  the  Northern  stations." 

(2)  Sixteen  preachers,  including  Watters,  agree  to  re- 
ceive their  appointments  at  the  "preparatory"  Conference 
(no  doubt  from  Asbury  himself,  in  view  of  the  answers  to 
Questions  12  and  13)  and  to  remain  in  their  stations  until 
the  next  session  of  the  irregular  body,  no  matter  what  might 
be  the  action  and  appointments  at  the  regular  Conference. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  no  one  of  the  sixteen,  except  Watters, 
even  gave  his  presence  at  the  regular  session. 

(3)  Though  styling  themselves  a  "  preparatory  "  Confer- 
ence, these  sixteen,  by  their  answer  to  Question  10,  con- 
cerning separation  from  the  Church  of  England,  decided 
the  sacramental  controversy,  absolutely  and  finally,  against 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments  hy  Methodist  preach- 
ers, without  waiting  to  consult  the  sentiments,  or  attempting 
to  change  the  convictions,  of  the  majority  of  the  preachers, 
who  were  about  to  assemble  in  regular  session  the  next 
month  at  Fluvanna. 

(4)  This  minority  designated  "Brother  Asbury  "  General- 
Assistant  for  America,  and  insured  his  supremacy  by  enact- 
ing that  "  On  hearing  every  preacher  for  and  against  what 
is  in  debate,  the  right  of  determination  shall  rest  with  him 
according  to  the  Minutes" — "that  is,"  adds  Stevens,  "ac- 
cording to  the  usage  of  Wesley,  as  seen  in  the  British  Min- 
utes, these  being  the  only  Mmutes  yet  extant.    The  Ameri- 


*  Christ.  Exp.  and  Min.Lab.,  pp.  72,  73;  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.Ch.,  11.  60,  61. 
•f  Semi-centennial  Sermon;  Stevens,  II.  60,  61;  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  81. 


lOO 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


can  Minutes  were  not  published  till  1795."  *  These  powers, 
however,  did  not  seem  so  unusual  to  the  preachers  who  sub- 
mitted to  them,  as  to  us,  since  General-Assistant  Rankin, 
as  well  as  Wesley,  had  exercised  them.  "  The  determina- 
tion of  questions  in  the  early  Conferences  was  a  prerogative 
of  the  General-Assistant,  qualified,  however,  by  the  opinion 
of  the  majority  when  this  was  obvious."  t  "In  imitation  of 
the  practice  of  Mr.  Wesley,  after  hearing  all  that  could  be 
said  ^r<9  and  con,  the  presiding  officer  decided  the  point."  % 
On  the  other  hand,  some  considerations  may  be  urged  in 
extenuation  of  what  appears  to  be  the  hasty  action  of  the 
Delaware  Conference. 

(1)  The  evident  drift  of  opinion  among  preachers  and 
people  may  have  been,  and  probably  was,  such  as  to  render 
it  certain  that  the  decision  of  the  sacramental  controversy  at 
the  regular  session  would  be  in  favor  of  the  administration 
of  the  ordinances.  It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that 
this  Southern  majority  afterwards  proved  singularly  tractable 
and  self-sacrificing. 

(2)  Asbury,  though  not  the  General- Assistant,  was  now 
the  only  preacher  in  America  who  had  been  sent  out  under 
a  commission  from  Mr.  Wesley:  this,  added  to  his  com- 
manding personal  influence,  based  on  his  character,  abilities, 
and  services,  rendered  him  in  some  sort  the  real  head  of 
American  Methodism. 

(3)  Wesley's  position  on  the  sacramental  question  was 
well  known.  The  practice  of  English  Methodism  had  been 
uniform.  The  "  United  Societies"  had  no  sacraments;  to 
administer  them  was  "  to  separate  from  the  Church." 
Methodists,  in  Europe  and  America,  were  Episcopalians, 
looking  to  "the  Church"  for  sacramental  provisions.  In 
addition  to  all  this,  the  Americans  in  their  first  Annual  Con- 
ference, held  under  the  presidency  of  the  now  departed 
Rankin,  in  1773,  had  bound  themselves  by  a  solemn  com- 
pact, which  we  have  elsewhere  §  ventured  to  describe  as 

*Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  58.  ^Ibid.,\\.  13,  footnote. 

J  Bangs,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  I.  132.       §  See  the  present  work,  pp.  61-66. 


Discord  and  Disunion:  1778-1780. 


lOI 


constitutional,  that  "the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  that 
Conference"  should  "extend  to  the  preachers  and  people 
in  America;"  that  "the  doctrine  and   discipline  of  the 
Methodists,  as  contained  in  the  Minutes,"  should  "  be  the 
sole  rule  of  our  conduct;"  and  "  that  if  any  preachers  de- 
viate from  the  Minutes,  we  can  have  no  fellowship  with  them 
till  they  change  their  conduct."    Thus  the  sacramental 
question  was  the  fundamental  test  in  both  England  and 
America :  while  the  Methodists  declined  to  administer,  they 
were  "societies;"  when  they  decided  to  empower  their 
own  preachers  to  dispense  the  sacraments,  they  became  a 
Church.    Asbury  doubtless  believed  that  he,  more  than  any 
other  man,  would  be  held  responsible  by  Mr.  Wesley  for 
such  a  radical  revolution  in  American  Methodism :  therefore 
to  meet  an  extraordinary  emergency  he  assumed  and  exer- 
cised extraordinary  powers.    His  "preparatory"  Confer- 
ence he  esteemed  "  regular  "  because  its  action  was  in  har- 
mony w^th  what  had  hitherto  been  uniformly  recognized  as 
essentially  Methodistic:   his  principles  among  Methodists 
had  been  accepted,  "«3  omttibus,  setnper,  et  ubigue.''''  The 
"  regular  "Conference  he  had  determined  in  advance  to  re- 
gard as  schismatic,  because,  in  his  view,  it  was  not  constitu- 
tionally capable  of  deciding  the  sacramental  question:  Mr. 
Wesley  must  be  heard  from.   Yet,  it  must  be  allowed,  by  the 
impartial  historian,  that  both  before  and  after  this  time,  As- 
bury was  not  passively  submissive  to  the  authority  of  Wes- 
ley on  other  points;  Rankin,  Wesley's  deputy,  had  found 
him  persistent  if  not  stubborn;  and  in  1784,  only  five  years 
later,  Asbury  determined  to  protect  himself  against  the  su- 
premacy of  Wesley,  by  demanding  election  to  the  Episcopal 
office  by  the  Conference,  after  he  had  received  appointment 
from  Wesley.    After  all  it  is  probable  that  had  Asbury 
agreed  with  the  Southern  majority  in  their  conviction  that 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments  was  now  a  necessity, 
or  in  the  expediency  and  legitimacy  of  presbyterial  ordi- 
nations, he  would  have  found  a  way  to  get  rid  of  all  consti- 
tutional and  Wesleyan  difficulties. 


I02 


American  Methodism  to  178^. 


Having  thus  endeavored  to  set  clearly  before  the  reader, 
impartially  and  thoroughly,  the  merits  of  this  controversy 
which  threatened  what  might  have  proved  a  fatal  schism  in 
the  infant  Methodism  of  America,  we  shall  be  permitted, 
(since  in  a  Constitutional  History  much  space  must  be  as- 
signed to  such  a  question,)  to  exhibit  briefly  the  opinions  of 
others. 

Dr.  Neely,  after  citing  from  Asbury's  Journal  an  account 
of  his  endeavors  "  to  prevent  a  separation  among  the 
preachers  in  the  South,"  says: 

He  fears  the  brethren  from  the  South  are  in  danger  of  separating,  and 
he  writes  certain  parties  to  endeavor  to  prevent  a  separation;  and  yet  these 
Northern  preachers,  who  rally  around  Mr.  Asbur^',  have  practically  with- 
drawn from  the  Southern  preachers,  and  stand  in  the  attitude  of  separatists. 
If  they  had  all  met  together,  and  the  Southerners  had  seceded,  then  the 
case  would  have  been  different;  or  even  if  all  had  met  at  the  place  legallj- 
designated,  and  the  Southerners,  having  a  majority,  had  carried  measures 
to  which  the  Northern  preachers  were  conscientiously  opposed,  and  then 
the  Northern  minority  had  withdrawn  on  principle,  the  case  would  have  been 
different.* 

Bishop  McTyeire  denominates  this  Delaware  assembly  a 
'■'■quasi  Conference  "  and  says:  "  The  opening  breach  was, 
at  last,  closed  by  the  moderation  of  the  sacramental  party, 
who  compromised  on  a  reference  of  the  whole  subject  [to 
Mr.  Wesley]  backed  by  such  official  statements  of  the  case 
as  had  never  before  been  made."  t  The  tone  of  his  judicial 
narrative  carries  with  it  sympathy  with,  and  admiration  for, 
the  independent  and  yet  moderate  course  of  the  sacramental 
party;  coupled  with  a  qualified  recognition  of  the  wisdom 
and  conservatism  of  Asbury's  action,  which,  however,  he 
does  not  fail  to  see  was  irregular.  Of  the  sacramentarians 
(if  we  may  so  employ  the  word)  he  says:  "  The  ground  was 
not  yielded  without  a  struggle — not  of  arguments,  for  the 
brethren  administering  the  ordinances  were  satisfied  with 
their  position — but  it  was  a  struggle  of  entreaties  and  tears, 
of  love  and  pleas  for  continued  union."  Of  Asbury's  party 
and  its  victory  he  writes:  "The  trained  conservatism  of 


*  Neely,  Gov.  Conf.  in  Meth.,  pp.  133,  134-    f^ist.  of  Meth.,  pp.  316,  318. 


Discord  and  Disunion:  ijy8-iySo.  103 


Wesleyan  Methodists  triumphed,  though  it  bore  hard  upon 
them  [the  American  Methodists].  They  waited  till  all 
could  be  united  in  measures  of  relief,  and  until  relief  could 
come  in  regular  order."  *  Five  years  later,  at  the  Christmas 
Conference  of  1784,  the  relief  came  "  in  regular  order." 

Dr.  Leroy  M.  Lee  expresses  a  very  decided  judgment  of 
the  irregularity  of  the  Delaware  proceedings: 

The  meeting  held  in  Kent  county,  Delaware,  April  28th,  1779,  preceding 
the  one  whose  acts  we  are  now  reviewing,  was  not  a  regular  session  of  the 
Conference  of  "Preachers  in  connexion  with  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,"  al- 
though it  is  so  styled  in  the  "  Printed  Minutes."  It  is  true,  the  circum- 
stances that  kept  Mr.  Asbury  from  his  usual  labors  in  the  Church,  prevent- 
ed his  attendance  at  the  Conference.  But  this  fact  neither  lessened  the  au- 
thority of  the  Virginia  Conference,  on  the  one  hand,  nor  augmented  the 
power  of  the  meeting  at  which  he  was  present,  in  Delaw^are,  on  the  other. 
And  it  is  due  to  historical  accuracy  to  state  that  the  Northern  meeting  was 
convened,  in  part,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  adoption  of  any  meas- 
ures with  regard  to  the  Ordinances.  .  .  .  And  both  Messrs.  \Vatters  and 
Garrettson,  in  their  journals,  refer  to  the  "  little  Conference,"  called  for  the 
"convenience"  of  the  Northern  Preachers;  all  of  whom  knew  the  question 
of  Ordinances  would  receive  the  final  decision  of  the  regular  Conference, 
then  near  at  hand;  and  Mr.  Watters,  who  was  present  at  both,  was  specially 
commissioned  to  communicate  to  the  Virginia  Conference  the  "sentiments" 
of  this  meeting,  as  a  kind  of  protest  against  the  adoption  of  any  measures 
upon  the  subject.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  Virginia  Conference 
complained  that  an  illegal  Conference  had  been  held,  to  keep  as  many  of 
the  Northern  Preachers  from  the  session  as  possible,  lest  they  should  join 
with  them  in  adopting  the  Ordinances.^ 

Dr.  Abel  Stevens  declares,  "The  Kent  session  was  not 
only  an  informal  one,  called  after  the  '  regular  Conference  ' 
had  been  appointed,  but  was  probably  unknown  to  the 
Southern  preachers  till  after  its  adjournment,"  and  continues 
at  length  in  the  same  vein : 

Any  student  of  Methodist  history  must  dissent  with  diffidence  from  the 
judgment  of  so  high  an  authority  as  Dr.  Nathan  Bangs.  That  historian 
says  that,  "Although  the  Kent  Conference  was  considered  as  'a  preparatory 
Conference,'  yet,  if  we  take  into  consideration  that  the  one,  afterward  held 
in  Virginia,  was  held  in  the  absence  of  the  General  Assistant,  we  shall  see 
good  reason  for  allowing  that  this,  which  was  held  under  the  presidency  of 
Mr.  Asbury,  was  the  rrrrular  Conference,  and  hence  their  acts  and  doings 
are  to  be  considered  valid."    The  historical  evidence  is,  however,  decisively 


*  Hist,  of  Meth.,  p.  315.    fLife  and  Times  of  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  81,  82. 


American  Methodism  to  JjS^. 


to  the  contrary.  Wesley  had  superseded  Asbury,  in  the  office  of  "General 
Assistant,"  by  the  appointment  of  Rankin.  Rankin  had  held  that  office  and 
presided  in  every  Annual  Conference  down  to  the  preceding  session.  At 
the  latter  Asbury  was  not  present;  he  was  in  retirement  at  Judge  White's 
house;  and  as  he  received  no  appointment,  his  name  is  not  even  mentioned, 
in  any  way  whatever,  in  the  Minutes  for  the  year;  Watters  presided,  and 
the  Conference  appointed  its  next  session  to  be  held  at  Fluvanna.  The  ses- 
sion at  Fluvanna  was,  therefore,  as  Watters  calls  it,  the  "regularly  appoint- 
ed Conference."  Instead  of  Asburj-  being  the  General  Assistant  at  this 
time,  that  office  had  been,  as  we  have  noticed,  put  in  commission  at  the 
Conference  of  1777,  being  vested  in  a  committee  of  five,  Gatch,  Dromgoole, 
Glendenning,  Ruff,  and  Watters,  in  view  of  the  probable  return  of  Rankin 
to  England.  All  these  commissioners,  except  Ruff,  were  within  the  territo- 
ry of  the  Fluvanna  Conference;  one  of  them,  Gatch,  presided  at  its  session, 
and  was  the  champion  of  its  proposed  reforms.  Asbury  was  designated  to 
the  office  of  General  Assistant  by  the  informal  Conference  in  Kent;  he  had, 
therefore,  no  previous  official  authority  to  call  that  Conference,  nor  could 
his  new  appointment  be  considered  legal  till  the  majority'  of  his  brethren, 
who  were  within  the  Fluvanna  Conference,  should  confirm  it.* 

The  reader  has  now  before  him  about  all  that  has  been  rele- 
vantly said — perhaps  all  that  can  be  judiciously  said — about 
this  "  irregular  "  session.  Irregular  it  certainly  was,  and  it 
was  probably  Asbury's  influence  which  brought  about  the  in- 
sertion of  its  proceedings  in  the  Minutes,  when  these  were 
first  collected  and  printed  in  1795.  Of  the  three  reasons  as- 
signed in  the  answer  to  Question  12  for  electing  Asbury 
General-Assistant,  the  third  about  his  "being  joined  with 
Messrs.  Rankin  and  Shadford,  by  express  order  from  Mr. 
Wesley,"  seems  to  be  inaccurate.  Shadford  was  not  ap- 
pointed co-General-Assistant;  but  Rankin  was  appointed  to 
supersede  Asbury  in  the  office,  and  the  latter  was  actually 
ordered  to  England.  During  the  administration  of  Rankin, 
Asbury  was  subordinate  to  his  authority.  As  President  of 
the  Conference,  he  made  the  appointments,  sometimes  sadly 
disappointing  Asbury.  Asbury  had  never  before  presided 
in  any  body  that  aspired  to  be  recognized  as  an  Annual 
Conference. 

The  Seventh  regular  Conference  assembled,  according  to 
adjournment,  at  Brokenback  Church,  Fluvanna  Co.,  Va., 
May  18,  1779.    William  Watters,  the  president  of  the  pre- 


*  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Church,  II.  62,  63. 


Discord  and  Disunion:  ijjS-iySo.  105 

ceding  year,  was  in  attendance:  his  name,  however,  is  sig- 
nificantly dropped  to  the  bottom  of  the  Hst  of  Assistants,  and 
it  is  not  probable  that  he  presided.  He  had  attended  the 
irregular  session  in  Kent,  and  at  the  following  meeting  of 
the  Northern  body,  his  name  is  placed  next  to  Asbury's  in 
the  Hst  of  Assistants.  Philip  Gatch  was  the  leading  spirit  of 
the  Conference,  and,  as  he  was  also  a  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Control,  appointed  two  years  before,  it  is  probable 
that  he  presided.  Dr.  Stevens  says  he  presided,  but  gives 
no  authority  for  the  statement.  The  Church  owes  to  him  a 
most  important  rule  of  administration:  the  trial  of  accused 
members  by  committee,  instead  of  the  previous  clerical 
right  of  excommunication. 

The  name  of  Asbury  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Min- 
utes of  this  "  regular  "  session.  There  is  no  name  common 
to  the  two  lists  of  Assistants,  six  of  whom  were  appointed 
at  the  Northern  Conference,  and  eleven  at  the  Southern. 
The  Baltimore  and  Frederick  Circuits  appear  in  both  lists 
of  appointments,  the  same  preachers  being  sent  to  them  by 
each  Conference,  except  that  at  the  regular  session  Free- 
born Garrettson  is  substituted  for  his  brother  Richard  on 
the  Frederick  work. 

The  statistics  of  all  the  circuits  are  given  in  the  regular 
Minutes:  with  the  exception  of  the  name  of  Watters,  this  is 
almost  the  only  indication  of  union  between  the  two  Con- 
ferences. There  are  8,577  members  in  society,  of  whom 
all  but  2,987,  even  when  Baltimore  and  Frederick  are 
counted  as  belonging  to  the  Northern  Conference,  hold 
their  membership  in  the  circuits  constituting  the  Virginia 
Conference.  The  Minutes  give  the  number  of  traveling 
preachers  as  49;  but  this  result  is  obviously  obtained  by 
adding  the  number  of  names  on  the  roll  of  the  irregular  Con- 
ference (17)  to  the  number  on  the  roll  of  the  regular  body 
(32):  there  were  but  44,  since  five  names  are  common  to 
the  two  rolls.  Allowing  Baltimore  and  Frederick  to  the  As- 
bury Conference,  it  contained  seven  circuits,  while  the  reg- 
ular body  had  fourteen.    The  proceedings  of  that  session 


io6  American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


not  only  represented  a  majority  of  the  circuits,  preachers, 
and  people,  but  were  enacted  in  the  legal  assembly  of  the 
Church,  and  by  a  legal  majority  of  its  recognized  legis- 
lators. 

The  answer  to  Ques.  6  marks  the  change  from  one  year 
of  probation  for  a  traveling  preacher  to  two  years,  before  he 
is  eligible  to  admission  into  full  connection:  a  rule  which 
has  continued  in  force  to  this  day.  The  next  answer  ex- 
cludes effective  men  who  do  not  travel  from  the  benefits  of 
quarterage  in  the  circuits  where  they  live  and  probably,  also, 
from  any  claim  on  the  Conference  collection.  The  final  an- 
swer regards  the  preacher  who  receives  a  subscription  which 
is  not  reported  as  quarterage  as  unfaithful  to  the  brother- 
hood and  excluded  from  the  connection. 

Strangely  enough,  the  printed  minutes  contain  no  refer- 
ence to  the  most  momentous  transaction  of  the  Conference. 
The  sacramental  controversy  received  a  positive  solution 
which  no  anticipatory  action  of  the  irregular  Conference 
could  prevent.  "The  Fluvanna  Conference,"  says  Ste- 
vens, "  being  the  '  regularly  appointed  '  session  of  this  year, 
had  the  question  therefore  legitimately  before  it — referred 
directly  to  it  by  the  preceding  session."  From  Philip 
Gatch's  manuscript  journal  we  extract  the  following  series 
of  questions  and  answers: 

^ues.  14.  What  are  our  reasons  for  taking  up  the  administration  of  the 
ordinances  among  us?  Arts.  Because  the  Episcopal  establishment  is  now 
dissolved,  and,  therefore,  in  almost  all  our  circuits  the  members  are  without 
the  ordinances — we  believe  it  to  be  our  duty. 

^ues.  15.  What  preachers  do  approve  of  this  step?  Ans.  Isham  Tatum, 
Charles  Hopkins,  Nelson  Reed,  Reuben  Ellis,  P.  Gatch,  Thomas  Morris, 
James  Morris,  James  Foster,  John  Major,  Andrew  Yeargan,  Henry  Willis, 
Francis  Poythress,  John  Sigman,  Leroy  Cole,  Carter  Cole,  James  O'Kelly, 
William  Moore,  Samuel  Roe. 

^ues.  16.  Is  it  proper  to  have  a  committee?  Ans.  Yes,  and  by  the  vote 
of  the  preachers. 

^ues.  17.  Who  are  the  committee?  Ans.  P.  Gatch,  James  Foster,  L. 
Cole,  and  R.  Ellis. 

.^ues.  18.  What  powers  do  the  preachers  vest  in  the  committee?  Ans. 
They  do  agree  to  observe  all  the  resolutions  of  the  said  committee,  so  far  as 
the  said  committee  shall  adhere  to  the  Scriptures. 


Discord  and  Disunion:  I'jyS—i'jSo.  107 


^es.  19.  What  form  of  ordination  siiall  be  observed,  to  authorize  any 
Preacher  to  administer?    Ans.  Bj  that  of  a  Presbytery. 

^es.  20.  How  shall  the  Presbytery  be  appointed?  Ans.  By  a  majority 
of  the  Preachers. 

^ues.  21.  Who  are  the  Presbytery?  Aus.  P.  Gatch,  R.  Ellis,  James  Fos- 
ter, and,  in  case  of  necessity,  Leroy  Cole. 

^ues.  22.  What  power  is  vested  in  the  Presbytery  by  this  choice?  Ans. 
1.  To  administer  the  ordinances  themselves.  2.  To  authorize  any  other 
Preacher  or  Preachers,  approved  of  by  them,  by  the  form  of  laying  on  of 
hands. 

^ues.  23.  What  is  to  be  observed  as  touching  the  administration  of  the 
ordinances,  and  to  whom  shall  they  be  administered?  Afis.  To  those  who 
are  under  our  care  and  discipline. 

^ues.  24.  Shall  we  rebaptize  any  under  our  care?    Ans.  No. 

.^ues.  25.  What  mode  shall  be  adopted  for  the  administration  of  baptism? 
Ans.  Either  sprinkling  or  plunging,  as  the  parent  or  adult  shall  choose. 

^ues.  26.  What  ceremony  shall  be  used  in  the  administration?  Ans. 
Let  it  be  according  to  our  Lord's  command.  Matt,  xxviii.  19:  short  and  ex- 
tempore. 

^ues.  27.  Shall  the  sign  of  the  cross  be  used?    Ans.  No. 

^ues.  28.  Who  shall  receive  the  charge  of  the  child,  after  baptism,  for 
its  future  instruction?  Ans.  The  parent  or  persons  who  have  the  care  of  the 
child,  with  advice  from  the  Preacher. 

^?(es.  29.  What  mode  shall  be  adopted  for  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper?  Ans.  Kneeling  is  thought  the  most  proper;  but,  in  cases 
of  conscience,  may  be  left  to  the  choice  of  the  communicant. 

^ues.  y>.  What  ceremony  shall  be  observed  in  this  ordinance?  Ans. 
After  singing,  praying,  and  exhortation,  the  Preacher  delivers  the  bread, 
saying,  '  The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  etc.,  after  the  Church  or- 
der.* 

The  governmental  situation  in  American  Methodism  on 
the  adjournment  of  the  Fluvanna  Conference  may  be  rep- 
resented in  detail  as  follows : 

(i)  The  Fluvanna  action  carefully  distinguishes  between 
the  new  Committee  of  Control  and  the  formally  constituted 
Presbytery.  To  be  sure  both  bodies  are  composed  of  the 
same  men:  the  men  fit  for  the  one  position  are  naturally 
also  those  best  qualified  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
the  other.  The  Committee  business  is  determined  in  Ques- 
tions 16,  17,  18;  and  Gatch's  selection  at  the  head  of  the 
new  organ  of  government  lends  additional  probabiHty  to  his 


*  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  79-81. 


io8 


American  Methodism  to  178^. 


presidency  of  this  Conference.  The  Presbytery  matter  is 
decided  in  Questions  19,  20,  21,  22. 

(2)  The  appointment  of  a  new  Committee  of  Control  de- 
liberately ignores  the  recognition  by  the  Kent  Conference 
of  Asbury's  powers  as  General-Assistant.  Watters  doubt- 
less communicated  to  the  regular  body  what  had  been 
done,  if  the  "  healing  epistle  "  did  not  also  contain  the  news. 
But  they  took  no  notice  of  the  election  of  Asbury.  More- 
over, it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  Kent  Conference  permit- 
ted itself  no  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  the  General-As- 
sistant, whereas  the  Fluvanna  brethren  expressly  reserved  to 
themselves  the  privilege  of  passing  upon  the  scriptural  char- 
acter of  the  acts  of  their  Committee. 

(3)  Jesse  Lee  records  that  "the  committee  [presbytery] 
thus  chosen  first  ordained  themselves,  and  then  proceeded  to 
ordain  and  set  apart  other  preachers  for  the  same  purpose, 
that  they  might  administer  the  holy  ordinances  to  the 
Church  of  Christ.  The  preachers  thus  ordained  went  forth 
preaching  the  gospel  in  their  circuits  as  formerly,  and  ad- 
ministered the  sacraments  wherever  they  went,  provided  the 
people  were  willing  to  partake  with  them."*  That  this  ac- 
tion was  decent,  rational,  and  scriptural,  Methodists  of  our 
day  would  have  little  disposition  to  deny.  The  regular  and 
legal  character  of  the  body  that  reached  this  decision  has  al- 
ready been  sufficiently  vindicated.  There  are  no  reasons 
why  "Philip  Gatch,  John  Dickins,  Nelson  Reed,  Reuben 
Ellis,  John  Major,  Henry  WiUis,  Francis  Poythress,  and 
others  as  eminent,  should  be  represented,  however  indi- 
rectly, as  they  have  hitherto  been  by  some  of  our  authori- 
ties, as,  practically,  revolters  from  and  disturbers  of  the 
Church.  They  were  in  every  legal  sense  the  Church 
itself."  t 

Yet  this  action  completed,  apparently  irreparably,  the 
breach  which  the  Northern  Conference  had  opened.  Not 
only  was  a  different  form  of  government  adopted  in  each 
body,  one  essentially  episcopal  and  the  other  as  evidently 


*  Hist,  of  Meth.,  p.  69.    j  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  66. 


Discord  and  Disunion:  iyy8—ij8o.  109 


presbyterial,  but  by  ordinations  and  sacraments  the  South- 
ern Methodists  had  deliberately  erected  themselves  into  a 
Presbyterian  Church.  From  this  step  it  seemed  impossi- 
ble to  recede.  The  two  Conferences  had  drifted  widely 
apart;  and  at  this  stage  of  the  proceeding,  it  was  difficult  to 
see  how  they  could  come  together  again. 

(4)  The  regular  Conference  had  departed  from  the 
recognized  principles  of  old  Methodism.  But  if  they  thus 
ceased  to  be  Methodists,  in  a  little  more  than  five  years  after- 
ward John  Wesley,  also,  ceased  to  be  one.  How  much 
this  action  of  theirs  determined  and  hastened  the  measures 
of  Wesley  for  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  cannot  be  estimated ;  but  no  doubt  it  contributed  no 
little  to  this  auspicious  result. 

The  Fluvanna  Conference  adjourned  to  hold  its  next  ses-. 
sion  at  Manikintown,  Va.,  May  8,  1780. 

///.  The  Two  Conferences  of  ij8o. 

Asbury's  Conference  of  conservatives  assembled  at  Balti- 
timore,  in  the  new  Lovely  Lane  Chapel,  Monday,  April  24, 
1780.  This  is  the  date  given  in  the  printed  minutes.  But  the 
preceding  Conference  had  adjourned  to  "the  last  Tuesday 
in  April,"  and  Asbury  says  under  date  of  Tuesday,  April 
25,  "Our  Conference  met  in  peace  and  love."  Probably 
the  preachers  began  arriving  on  Monday;  some  informal 
conversations  were  held  that  day;  and  on  Tuesday  the  Con- 
ference began  its  session,  with  Asburj'  in  the  Chair.  On 
the  24th  Asbury  prepared  his  list  of  appointments.* 

Since  the  last  session  Asbury's  Conference  of  conserva- 
tive or  constitutional  irregulars  had  been  gaining  some 
ground.  The  action  taken  at  the  regular  Conference  in 
Virginia  had  been  supported  by  a  large  majority,  but  was 
not  unanimous.  Some  of  the  older  lay  members,  perhaps  a 
considerable  number,  trained  in  the  traditions  of  Methodism, 
were  doubtful  about  receiving  the  ordinances  from  other 
than  episcopally-ordained  men,  especially  without  Mr.  Wes- 
*Journal,  I.  280,  281. 


no 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


ley's  consent.  The  few  preachers  who  could  not  approve 
the  action  of  the  Virginia  Conference  transferred  their  mem- 
bership and  labors  to  the  Northern  body. 

The  first  question  propounded  is  this,  "What  preachers 
do  now  agree  to  sit  in  Conference  on  the  original  plan  as 
Methodists?"  The  names  of  twenty-four  preachers  are  ap- 
pended. This  is  an  increase  of  eight  over  the  number  that 
had  signed  Question  6  in  the  last  Conference ;  but  several  of 
these  were  now  admitted  on  trial  and  none  of  the  eighteen 
progressives  who  approved  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments— like  Tatum,  Reed,  Ellis,  Gatch,  WilHs,  Poythress, 
Cole,  and  O'Kelly — are  included.  John  Tunnell  is  per- 
haps the  most  influential  man  that  had  come  over.  The 
Southern  Conference  is  still  strong  in  leaders  and  numbers ; 
but  the  Northerners  have  gained  a  signal  advantage  in  the 
phraseology  of  this  first  question,  which  plants  them  squarely 
on  the  "original  plan" — the  constitutional  enactments  of 
1773.  Here  was  Asbury's  strength,  and  he  knew  it.  He 
alone  of  all  the  preachers  now  itinerating  in  America  had 
been  sent  out  by  Wesley;  he  alone  had  been  commissioned 
as  Assistant  for  America:  his  Conference  now  stood  on  the 
Wesleyan  platform.  Irregular  he  was,  but  in  defense  of 
Wesleyanism  and  the  fundamental  compact  of  the  Ameri- 
cans adopted  at  Rankin's  first  Annual  Conference. 

The  list  of  appointments  shows  ten  circuits,  including  Bal- 
timore and  Frederick,  and  twenty-two  preachers  assigned 
to  work.  Asbury,  as  recognized  General-Assistant,  did  not 
take  an  appointment.  Of  the  twenty-two  appointees  sev- 
eral were  young  men,  however,  just  admitted  on  trial,  so 
that  as  regards  the  older  and  more  influential  men  the  rel- 
ative strength  of  the  parties  to  the  controversy  is  but  little 
changed. 

Asbury  speaks  in  his  Journal  more  than  once,  during  the 
period  just  preceding  the  assembling  of  this  Conference,  of 
"preparing  papers"  for  the  body.  The  statesmanship  of 
the  natural  leader  is  asserting  itself  in  deliberate  mastery  of 
the  emergencies  of  the  times  and  the  peculiarities  of  his  sit- 


Discord  and  Disunion:  ly-jS-iySo.  iii 


uation.  He  is  consolidating  his  preachers  and  people  by 
the  imposition  of  new  and  timely  rules  and  regulations.  No 
one  could  foresee  how  long  the  struggle  with  the  Southern 
Conference  might  be  protracted:  like  a  wise  general  Asbury 
prepared  for  the  shock  and  strain  of  sharp  and  continuous 
conflict  by  unifying  and  strengthening  his  own  forces  and 
binding  them  more  closely  to  their  commander.  This  policy 
is  outlined  in  a  series  of  twenty  questions  and  answers,  almost 
all  of  which  bear  visibly  the  marks  of  having  been  proposed 
from  the  Chair,  with  whom  "  the  right  of  determination  " 
rested.  More  legislation  is  now  enacted  than  had  hereto- 
fore, so  far  as  the  Minutes  show,  been  considered  in  any 
annual  assembly:  even  if  the  recalcitrant  Virginians  should 
return,  it  was  desirable  that  they  should  find  the  government 
solid,  and  shaped  to  the  General-Assistant's  hand.  While 
Asbury  was  a  local  preacher,  they  had  strayed  from  the  old 
paths  of  Methodism.  But  even  in  that  lowly  capacity  he 
had  proved  himself  too  much  for  them.  If,  on  returning  to 
the  constitutional  fold,  they  find  him  securely  seated  in  the 
General-Assistant's  Chair,  their  commission  of  superintend- 
ency  as  well  as  their  presbytery,  will  dissolve  into  thin  air, 
and  the  man  who  is  authorized  to  exercise  all  the  powers 
that  ever  belonged  to  Thomas  Rankin,  or  to  Wesley  himself 
in  the  British  Conference,  will  see  that  the  progressive 
Southerners  do  not  again  slip  their  halters. 

The  most  of  these  twenty  questions  and  answers,  as  incor- 
porating several  principles  and  measures  which  have  re- 
mained permanently  operative  in  American  Methodism,  as 
well  as  the  Asburyan  ultimatum  to  the  regular  Conference, 
are  here  cited: 

^es.  7.  Ought  not  all  the  Assistants  to  see  to  the  settling  of  all  the  preach- 
ing houses  bj  trustees,  and  order  the  said  trustees  to  meet  once  in  half  a 
year,  and  keep  a  register  of  their  proceedings;  if  there  are  any  vacancies 
choose  new  trustees  for  the  better  security  of  the  houses,  and  let  all  the 
deeds  be  drawn  in  substance  after  that  in  the  printed  Minutes?    Ans.  Yes. 

^es.  8.  Shall  all  the  traveling  preachers  take  a  license  from  every  Con- 
ference, importing  that  they  are  Assistants  or  helpers  in  connection  with 
us?    Ans.  Yes. 


112 


American  Methodism  to  178^. 


^ues.  g.  Shall  Brother  Asburj  sign  them  in  behalf  of  the  Conference? 
Ans.  Yes. 

^ues.  10.  Ought  it  to  be  strictly  enjoined  on  all  our  local  preachers  and 
exhorters,  that  no  one  presume  to  speak  in  public  without  taking  a  vote 
every  quarter  (if  required)  and  be  examined  by  the  Assistant  with  respect 
to  his  life,  his  qualification,  and  reception?    Aiis.  Yes. 

^ues.  12.  Shall  we  continue  in  close  connection  with  the  Church,  and 
press  our  people  to  a  closer  communion  with  her?    Afis.  Yes. 

^ties.  13.  Will  this  Conference  grant  the  privilege  to  all  the  friendly 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  at  the  request  or  desire  of  the  people,  to 
preach  or  administer  the  ordinances  in  our  preaching  houses  or  chapels? 
Ans.  Yes. 

.^ues.  16.  Ought  not  this  Conference  to  require  those  traveling  preachers 
who  hold  slaves  to  give  promises  to  set  them  free?    Ans.  Yes. 

.^ues.  17.  Does  this  Conference  acknowledge  that  slavery  is  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  God,  man,  and  nature,  and  hurtful  to  society;  contrary  to  the 
dictates  of  conscience  and  pure  religion,  and  doing  that  which  we  would 
not  others  should  do  to  us  and  ours?  Do  we  pass  our  disapprobation  on  all 
our  friends  who  keep  slaves,  and  advise  their  freedom?    Ans.  Yes. 

^«<'5.  20.  Does  this  whole  Conference  disapprove  the  step  our  brethren 
have  taken  in  Virginia?    A?is.  Yes. 

^ucs.  21.  Do  we  look  upon  them  no  longer  as  Methodists  in  connection 
with  Mr.  Wesley  and  us  till  they  come  back?    Ans.  Agreed. 

^ues.  22.  Shall  brother  Asbury,  Garrettson,  and  Watters  attend  the 
Virginia  Conference,  and  inform  them  of  our  proceedings  in  this,  and  receive 
their  answer?    Aus.  Yes. 

^itcs.  23.  Do  we  disapprove  of  the  practice  of  distilling  grain  into  liquor? 
Shall  we  disown  our  friends  who  will  not  renounce  the  practice?    Ans.  Yes. 

^iies.  24.  What  shall  the  Conference  do  in  case  of  brother  Asbury's 
death  or  absence?    Ans.  Meet  once  a  year,  and  act  according  to  the  Minutes. 

^ues.  25.  Ought  not  the  Assistant  to  meet  the  colored  people  himself, 
and  appoint  as  helpers  in  his  absence  proper  white  persons,  and  not  suffer 
them  to  stay  late,  and  meet  by  themselves?    Ans.  Yes. 

^ues.  26.  What  must  be  the  conditions  of  our  union  with  our  Virginia 
brethren?  Ans.  To  suspend  all  their  administrations  for  one  year,  and  all 
meet  together  in  Baltimore. 

Questions  12,  13,  20,  21,  22,  and  26  constitute  the  uitt- 
matum  to  the  Virginians.  Reserving  these  for  more  minute 
consideration,  let  us  first  notice  the  purport  and  bearing  of 
some  of  the  remaining  enactments. 

(i)  "Minutes"  are  mentioned  in  two  answers — those  to 
Questions  7  and  24.  The  American  as  well  as  the  English 
Minutes  are  doubtless  included  in  the  latter  case.  But  in 
the  former,  '■'■printed  Minutes"  are  exclusively  referred  to. 


Discord  and  Disnnion:  1778-1780.  113 


These  could  only  be  the  English  Minutes,  since  all  authori- 
ties from  Jesse  Lee  down  agree  that  the  American  Minutes 
were  not  annually  printed  before  1785;*  the  first  collected 
edition  being  issued  by  Dickins  in  1795.  This  answer  is  the 
earliest  recognition,  in  the  official  transactions  of  the  Ameri- 
can Conferences,  of  the  doctrinal  standards  of  Methodism. 
The  American  chapels  and  meetinghouses  had  been  gener- 
ally settled  according  to  the  form  of  the  deed  used  in  En- 
gland since  1750:  but  now  the  Conference  specially  enjoins 
on  all  the  Assistants  that  (i)  trustees  shall  everywhere  be 
appointed;  that  (2)  they  shall  meet  semi-annually,  and  (3) 
keep  a  record  of  their  proceedings ;  that  (4)  all  vacancies  on 
these  boards  shall  be  promptly  filled;  and  that  (5)  "all  the 
deeds  shall  be  drawn  in  substance  after  that  in  the  -printed 
[/.  e.  English]  Minutes."  But  that  deed  provided  that  the 
trustees  should  hold  the  property  for  the  sole  use  of  such 
persons  as  might  be  appointed  at  the  yearly  Conference  of 
the  people  called  Methodists,  provided  the  said  persons 
preached  no  other  doctrines  than  those  contained  in  Wes- 
ley's Notes  on  the  New  Testament  and  in  his  four  volumes 
of  Sermons. t  This  question  is  of  far-reaching  importance, 
and  will  come  up  again.  Only  in  recent  times,  by  those  who 
have  permitted  the  history  to  drop  out  of  their  memories,  has 
the  question  been  raised  as  to  the  scope  and  intention  of 
that  part  of  the  first  Restrictive  Rule  which  forbids  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  to  "  establish  any  new  standards  or  rule  of 
doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing  and  established 
standards  of  doctrine."  For  American  Methodism  the  prog- 
ress of  our  history  will  tend  to  establish  that  these  stand- 
ards of  doctrine  are  (i)  the  Twenty-five  Articles,  (2)  Wes- 
ley's Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  and  (3)  his  four  volumes 
of  Sermons,  the  limits  of  which  will  be  more  particularly 
fixed  hereafter.  From  this  Conference  of  1780  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1808,  which  adopted  the  Restrictive 
Rule,  the  testimony,  with  the  exception  of  one  important 
element,  is  uniform. 

Nor  is  this  question  purely  theoretical  and  doctrinal  in  its 

*Lee,  Short  History,  p.  89.    fTverman,  II.  478,  and  III.  417. 
8 


114 


American  Methodism  to  178^. 


bearing.  As  long  as  two  Conferences  existed  in  America, 
each  claiming  "connection  with  Mr.  Wesley,"  and  each  ex- 
ercising an  independent  and  supreme  jurisdiction,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  questions  of  titles  to  Church  property  were  more 
than  likely  to  arise.  Asbury,  a  prudent  man,  foresaw  the 
evil  and  hid  himself.  This  minute  direction  concerning 
trustees  and  the  form  of  deeds  would  secure  to  the  Northern 
Conference  all  the  property  they  were  then  holding  and 
using:  if  the  Southerners  persisted  in  their  independent 
course,  and  an  issue  were  raised  for  settlement  in  the  courts, 
it  might  be  in  evidence  that  they  had  so  far  departed  from 
the  "original  plan"  of  Wesleyan  Methodism  as  to  forfeit 
their  title  to  the  property  they  were  holding.  All  this  As- 
bury had  carefully  thought  out,  and  he  had  this  minute 
ready  for  adoption  by  the  Conference.  In  his  subsequent 
administration,  he,  no  doubt,  carefully  looked  to  its  enforce- 
ment. 

(2)  Questions  9  and  10  were  further  designed,  it  is  evi- 
dent, to  furnish  an  easy  touchstone  by  which  the  Asburyan 
preachers  might  be  instantly  identified  and  distinguished 
from  the  traveling  preachers  of  the  Southern  Conference. 
Moreover,  since  this  license  under  Asbury' s  hand  was  sub- 
ject to  annual  renewal  by  the  Conference,  it  enabled  -the 
General-Assistant  to  keep  all  his  forces  well  in  hand :  when 
a  brother  became  weak  on  the  sacramental  question,  or  took 
work  under  the  other  Conference,  his  license  could  be  suf- 
fered to  lapse,  and  that  would  be  the  end  of  the  matter. 
After  the  schism  was  healed,  this  continued  a  most  whole- 
some and  useful  provision.  Question  10  was  also  intended 
to  put  the  local  preachers  and  exhorters  into  more  closely 
fitting  harness,  with  the  reins  in  a  traveling  preacher's  hand. 

(3)  Questions  16  and  17  mark  the  introduction  of  anti- 
slavery  legislation  into  American  Methodism.  ''Metho- 
dism thus  early  recorded  its  protest  against  negro  slavery, 
anticipating  its  abolition  in  Massachusetts  by  three  years,  in 
Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  by  four  years,  the  thesis  of 
Clarkson,  before  the  University  of  Cambridge,  by  five  years; 


Discord  and  Disunion:  IJ78-1780.  115 


and  the  ordinance  of  Congress  against  it,  in  the  Northwest- 
ern Territory,  by  seven  years."  * 

(4)  Question  23  is  sufficient  evidence  that  Methodism 
was  not  only  an  anti-slavery,  but  also  a  temperance  society, 
from  the  beginning. 

(5)  Question  24  is  conclusive  proof  that  Asbury  was  not 
actuated  by  personal  motives  or  ambitions  in  forming  and 
continuing  the  Northern  Conference.  He  did  not  intend- 
that  its  existence  should  hinge  on  the  accident  of  his  pres- 
ence or  absence,  his  life  or  death.  He  regarded  it  as  the 
bulwark  of  Wesleyanism  in  America  and  the  exponent  of 
original  Methodism.  Therefore  he  provided  that,  in  the 
event  of  his  absence  or  death,  the  body  should  not  be  ab- 
sorbed in  the  Virginia  Conference,  which,  from  his  stand- 
point, was  made  up  of  separatists,  "no  longer  to  be  looked 
upon  as  Methodists  in  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  and  us." 
Therefore,  if  brother  Asbury  should  die,  the  Northern  Con- 
ference must  "meet  once  a  year  and  act  according  to  the 
Minutes  " — doubtless  both  English  and  American,  includ- 
ing the  Minutes  of  this  present  momentous  session. 

(6)  Question  25  amply  attests  that  from  the  beginning  to 
spread  the  gospel  among  the  slaves  was  accepted  as  part  of 
the  Heaven-appointed  mission  of  Methodism.  The  Assist- 
ant was  to  meet  the  people  of  color  himself,  and  in  no  case 
to  leave  them  under  improper  or  incapable  "helpers"  of 
their  own  race.  "  This  probably  gave  the  preachers  an  op- 
portunity," remarks  Neely,  "to  preach  to  the  slaves  without 
exciting  the  suspicion  of  their  owners,  who  even  at  that  day 
did  not  know  what  schemes  might  be  resorted  to  by  the 
slaves  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  their  freedom."  f 

Asbury' s  Journal  reveals  the  fact  that  the  ultimatutn, 
which  in  effect  excommunicated  the  Southern  Conference 
"till  they  come  back,"  was  not  reached  until  after  a  pro- 
tracted debate  on  a  plan,  or  conditions,  of  union  proposed  by 
himself.    Tuesday,  April  25,  he  says: 

We  settled  all  our  Northern  stations;  then  we  began  in  much  debate 


♦Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  78.  f  Gov.  Conf.  in  Meth.,  pp.  158,  159. 


ii6  American  Methodism  to  J784. 

about  the  letter  sent  from  Virginia.  We  first  concluded  to  renounce  them. 
Then  I  offered  conditions  of  union: 

I.  That  they  should  ordain  no  more. 

II.  That  they  should  come  no  further  than  Hanover  Circuit. 

III.  That  we  would  have  our  delegates  in  their  Conference. 

IV.  That  thej  should  not  presume  to  administer  the  ordinances  where 
there  is  a  decent  Episcopal  minister. 

V.  To  have  a  Union  Conference. 

These  would  not  do,  as  we  found  upon  long  debate,  and  we  came  back 
to  our  determinations;  although  it  was  like  death  to  think  of  parting.  At 
last  a  thought  struck  my  mind,  to  propose  a  suspension  of  the  ordinances 
for  one  year,  and  so  cancel  all  our  grievances  and  be  one.  It  was  agreed 
on  both  sides;  and  Philip  Gatch  and  Reuben  Ellis,  that  had  been  very  stiff, 
came  into  it,  and  thought  It  would  do.* 

As  we  have  already  gathered  from  the  Minutes  (Ques. 
22)  Asbury,  Garrettson,  and  Watters  were  the  Committee 
appointed  to  attend  the  Virginia  Conference.  Asbury's 
plan  of  union,  it  is  seen,  was  a  little  awkward  and  complex, 
as  he  doubtless  saw  after  the  sifting  of  Conference  de- 
bate. It  involved  (i)  the  recognition  of  existing  ordina- 
tions, but  the  cessation  of  the  practice  for  the  future;  (2)  a 
boundary  line  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  jurisdic- 
tions; (3)  Asburyan  delegates  in  the  Virginia  Conference; 
(4)  the  ordained  Methodists  to  refrain  from  administering 
the  sacraments,  where  there  was  a  "  decent  Episcopal  min- 
ister; "  and  (5)  a  Union  Conference,  in  which  it  was  in- 
tended, no  doubt,  that  a  final  and  faithful  effort  should  be 
made  to  adjust  all  differences.  This  plan  was  abandoned, 
however,  and  that  embodied  in  the  Minutes  substituted. 

The  regular  Conference  at  Fluvanna  had  adjourned  to 
meet  at  Manakintown,  Powhattan  County,  Va.,  May  8, 
1780.1  No  separate  Minutes  of  this  session  are  known  to 
exist:  the  official  printed  Minutes  of  the  denomination  sim- 
ply incorporate  the  returns  of  numbers  in  society  with  the 
similar  statistics  in  the  Baltimore  Conference,  and  by  insert- 
ing, "  Question  27.  How  are  the  preachers  stationed  in 
Virginia?"  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Asburyan  body,  in- 

*Journal,  I.  281. 

I  Mr.  Justice  McLean's  Life  of  Gatch,  p.  75;  Garrettson's  Semi-centen- 
nial Sermon. 


Discord  and  Disunion:  lyjS-iySo.  117 


elude  the  Southern  appointments  in  the  Northern  minutes. 
The  Southerners  have  ten  circuits,  and  to  them  twenty- 
preachers  are  appointed,  mostly  men  of  experience  and 
weight,  like  Dickins,  Poythress,  O'Kelly,  Reed,  Willis, 
Cole,  and  others.*  Stevens  regards  the  omission  or  suppres- 
sion of  the  Manakintown  Minutes  as  "  a  grave  defect  in  the 
official  records  of  the  denomination." f     He  continues: 

The  Fluvanna  session  being,  as  has  been  shown,  the  "  regularly  appoint- 
ed "  Conference,  legitimately  adjourned  from  the  preceding  year,  under 
the  authoritatively  appointed  commissioners  of  superintendency,  presided 
over  by  one  of  those  commissioners,  and  comprising  a  majority  of  the  cir- 
cuits, preachers,  and  people,  was  unquestionably  the  legal  or  rightful  ses- 
sion of  the  body.  The  legitimate  session  for  the  next  year  must  therefore 
be  that  to  which  the  Fluvanna  session  adjourned.  .  .  .  This  statement 
of  the  facts  of  the  case  is,  I  repeat,  due  to  the  integrity  of  history  and  to  the 
memory  of  the  Fluvanna  brethren,  who,  as  has  been  seen,  were  no  schism 
or  faction,  but  really,  at  the  time  of  their  session,  the  Church,  represented 
in  its  legitimate  Conference.  Their  measures  were  equally  legitimate;  they 
were  conducted  with  dignity  and  solemnity;  and  they  were  at  last  effectuat- 
ed, to  the  signal  advantage  of  American  Methodism. J 

Though  the  essential  injustice,  involved  in  the  omission  or 
suppression  of  the  Minutes  of  the  regular  session  of  1780 
(the  eighth  regular  session  of  the  American  Conference) 
must  be  allowed,  it  can  be  satisfactorily  shown  from  other 
sources,  that  nothing  material  has  been  lost.  Asbury  was 
present  at  the  beginning  of  the  Conference,  and  almost 
certainly  to  its  close.  The  sacramental  controversy,  and 
union  with  the  Northern  Conference,  were  the  topics  im- 
mediately introduced,  and  it  is  certain  that  we  have  the  sub- 
stance of  the  conclusions  reached.  Moreover,  it  can  be 
shown  that  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that,  after  conditions 
of  union  were  agreed  upon,  Asbur}^  himself  made  the 
Southern  appointments;  and,  as  this  was  the  only  other  im- 
portant business  transacted,  he  probably  at  the  time  inserted 
these  appointments  in  the  Northern  Minutes,  or,  at  least, 
did  so  when  the  Minutes  were  first  printed  in  1795.  He 
may  have  thought  it  wise  to  suppress  the  evidences  of  dis- 
union, and,  however  we  may  regret  his  action  from  the 

♦Minutes,  ed.  1795,  pp.  39,  40.    ■\\\\?,\..  M.  E.  Ch.,  11.  66,  73.    Xlbid.,  II.  73-76. 


Ii8  American  Methodisin  to  178^. 


standpoint  of  official  punctilio,  we  may  not  impeach  his  mo- 
tives. Asbury,  Watters,  and  Garrettson,  the  three  commis- 
sioners, have  all  left  full  and  interesting  accounts  of  their 
embassy.  Let  us  attentively  consider  then  the  extant,  con- 
temporary sources  of  information,  and  the  foregoing  conclu- 
sions will  be  forced  upon  us.    And  first  Asbury's  Journal: 

Monday,  May  i,  1780.    I  am  going  to  Virginia. 

Thursday  4.  Prepared  some  papers  for  Virginia  Conference. — I  go  with 
a  heavy  heart;  and  fear  the  violence  of  a  party  of  positive  men! 

Friday  5.  Set  out  in  company  with  brother  Garrettson.  .  .  .  We 
found  that  the  plague  was  begun;  the  good  man  Arnold  was  warm  for  the 
ordinances. 

Sunday  7.  On  entering  into  Virginia,  I  have  prepared  some  papers  for 
the  Conference,  and  expect  trouble,  but  grace  is  almighty. 

Monday  8.  These  people  are  full  of  the  ordinances.  We  talked  and 
prayed  with  them,  then  rode  on  to  the  Manakintown  ferry,  much  fatigued 
with  the  ride;  went  to  friend  Smith's,  where  all  the  preachers  were  met.  I 
conducted  myself  with  cheerful  freedom,  but  found  there  was  a  separation 
in  heart  and  practice.  I  spoke  with  my  countryman,  John  Dickins,  and 
found  him  opposed  to  our  continuance  in  union  with  the  Episcopal  Church. 
Brothers  Watters  and  Garrettson  tried  their  men,  and  found  them  inflex- 
ible. 

Tuesday  9.  The  Conference  was  called:  Brother  Watters,  Garrettson, 
and  myself  stood  back;  and  being  afterward  joined  by  Brother  Dromgoole, 
we  were  desired  to  come  in,  and  I  was  permitted  to  speak. — I  read  Wesley's 
thoughts  against  a  separation;  showed  my  private  letters  of  instruction 
from  Mr.  Wesley;  set  before  them  the  sentiments  of  the  Delaware  and 
Baltimore  Conferences;  read  our  epistles,  and  read  my  letter  to  Broth- 
er Gatch,  and  Dickins's  letter  in  answer.  After  some  time  spent  in 
this  way,  it  was  proposed  to  me,  if  I  would  get  the  circuits  supplied,  they 
would  desist;  but  that  I  could  not  do.  We  went  to  preaching;  I  spoke  on 
Ruth  ii.  4,  and  spoke  as  though  nothing  had  been  the  matter  among  the 
preachers  or  people;  and  we  were  greatly  pleased  and  comforted;  there  was 
some  moving  among  the  people.  In  the  afternoon  we  met.  The  preach- 
ers appeared  to  me  to  be  farther  off;  there  had  been,  I  thought,  some  talk- 
ing out  of  doors.  When  we — Asbury,  Garrettson,  W^atters,  and  Drom- 
goole—could  not  come  to  a  conclusion  with  them,  we  withdrew,  and  left 
them  to  deliberate  on  the  conditions  I  offered,  which  was  to  suspend  the 
measures  they  had  taken  for  one  year.  After  an  hour's  conference,  we 
were  called  to  receive  their  answer,  which  was  that  they  could  not  submit 
to  the  terms  of  union.  I  then  prepared  to  leave  the  house  to  go  to  a  near 
neighbor's  to  lodge,  under  the  heaviest  cloud  I  ever  felt  in  America.  O 
what  I  felt!  Nor  I  alone,  but  the  agents  on  both  sides!  They  wept  like 
children,  but  kept  their  opinions. 

Wednesday  10.    I  returned  to  take  leave  of  the  Conference,  and  to  go 


Discord  and  Disunion:  ly-jS-iySo. 


119 


ofi  immediately  to  the  North;  but  found  they  had  been  brought  to  an  agree- 
ment while  I  was  praying,  as  with  a  broken  heart,  in  the  house  we  went  to 
lodge  at;  and  Brothers  Watters  and  Garrettson  had  been  praying  upstairs, 
where  the  Conference  sat.  We  heard  what  they  had  to  say — surely  the 
hand  of  God  has  been  greatly  seen  in  all  this.  There  might  have  been 
twenty  promising  preachers  and  three  thousand  people  seriously  affected 
by  this  separation,  but  the  Lord  would  not  suffer  this.  We  then  had  preach- 
ing by  Brother  Watters  on  "  Come  thou  with  us,  and  we  will  do  thee  good  " 
— afterward  we  had  a  love-feast;  preachers  and  people  wept,  prayed,  and 
talked,  so  that  the  spirit  of  dissension  was  powerfully  weakened,  and  I 
hoped  it  would  never  take  place  again.* 

Thus  we  see  that  Asbury  was  present  three  days — the 
usual  term  of  a  Conference  session  at  that  time — and  that 
almost  the  whole  time  was  taken  up  with  interviews  with 
him  and  his  colleagues,  and  the  exciting  discussions  that  re- 
sulted therefrom.  It  was  proposed  to  desist  from  the  admin- 
istration of  the  ordinances,  if  Asbury  could  get  Episcopal 
ministers  to  supply  the  circuits  with  sacraments,  but  this  he 
could  not  do. 

William  Watters,  who  was  also  one  of  the  commissioners  of 
union,  and  was,  therefore,  a  participator  in,  and  eye  and  ear 
witness  of,  these  proceedings,  has  left  us  a  detailed  account 
of  his  mission,  its  progress  and  results.    He  says: 

We  found  our  brethren  as  loving  and  as  full  of  zeal  as  ever,  and  as  de- 
termined on  persevering  in  their  newly  adopted  mode;  for  to  all  their  for- 
mer arguments  they  now  added  (what  with  many  was  infinitely  stronger 
than  all  other  arguments  in  the  world)  that  the  Lord  approbated  and  great- 
ly blessed  his  own  ordinances,  by  them  administered  the  past  year.  We 
had  a  great  deal  of  loving  conversation,  with  many  tears;  but  I  saw  no  bit- 
terness, no  shj-ness,  no  judging  each  other.  We  wept  and  prayed  and 
sobbed,  but  neither  would  agree  to  the  other's  terms.  In  the  meantime,  I 
was  requested  to  preach  at  twelve  o'clock.  As  I  had  many  preachers  and 
professors  to  hear  me,  I  spoke  from  the  words  of  Moses  to  his  father-in-law: 
"  We  are  journeying  unto  the  place  of  which  the  Lord  said,  I  will  give  it  to 
you;  come  thou  with  us,  and  we  will  do  thee  good;  for  the  Lord  hath  spo- 
ken good  concerning  Israel."  After  waiting  two  days,  and  all  hopes  of  an  ac- 
commodation failing,  we  had  fixed  on  starting  back  early  in  the  morning; 
but  late  in  the  evening  it  was  proposed  by  one  of  their  own  party  in  Conference 
{none  of  the  others  being  present)  that  there  should  be  a  suspension  of  the  ordi- 
nances for  the  present  year,  and  that  our  circumstances  should  be  laid  before  Mr. 
Wesley,  and  his  advice  solicited;  also  that  Mr.  Asbury  should  be  requested  to  ride 
through  the  different  circuits ,  and  superintend  the  work  at  large.    The  proposal,  in 


*  Asbury's  Journal,  I.  282,  283. 


I20 


American  Methodism  to  17S4. 


a  feiv  minutes,  took  with  all  but  a  few.  In  the  morning,  instead  of  coming  off  in 
despair  of  any  remedy,  ive  -were  invited  to  take  our  seats  again  in  Conference, 
■where,  -with  great  rejoicings  and  praises  to  God,  -we,  on  both  sides,  heartily  agreed 
to  the  above  accommodation.* 

The  Baltimore  terms  were  accepted  and,  most  wonderful 
of  all,  forcing  us  to  recognize  the  overwhelming  personal 
influence  of  the  man,  Mr.  Asbury  was  ^'■requested  to  ride 
through  the  different  circuits,  and  superintend  the  work 
AT  LARGE."  This  proposal  instantly  took  with  nearly  the 
entire  Conference,  and,  in  the  morning,  the  Northern  com- 
missioners took  their  seats  in  the  Conference,  and  both  sides 
"heartily  agreed  to  the  accommodation."  Since  Mr.  As- 
bury's  powers  as  General-Assistant  were  thus  cordially  and 
generally  recognized  before  the  adjournment,  I  repeat  that, 
as  the  Committee  of  Control  in  the  South  was  practically 
abolished  by  this  arrangement,  it  is  not  improbable  that 
Asbury  arranged  the  appointments  and  afterwards  inserted 
them  in  the  minutes  of  the  Baltimore  Conference. 

Garrettson's  accounts,  both  in  his  Autobiography  f  and  in 
his  Semi-centennial  Sermon,  add  little  to  the  particulars  al- 
ready before  us  except  that  "  a  letter,  containing  a  circum- 
stantial account  of  the  case,  written  by  John  Dickins,  was 
signed  and  sent  to  Mr.  Wesley."  As  Dickins  corresponded 
with  Wesley  on  behalf  of  the  Conference,  so  Asbury  rested 
Friday,  May  12,  "to  write  to  Mr.  Wesley,"  and  on  Satur- 
day, Sept.  16,  he  "wrote  to  Mr.  Wesley,  at  the  desire  of 
the  Virginia  Conference,  who  had  consented  to  suspend  the 
administration  of  the  ordinances  for  one  year."t  Thus  the 
case  was  appealed  by  consent  to  the  Methodist  patriarch  in 
England,  while  the  General-Assistant  in  America  is  again  ex- 
ercising undisputed  superintendence  over  the  whole  work. 

♦  Christ.  Exp.  and  Minist.  Lab.,  pp.  80,  81.  f  See  "  Experience  and  Trav- 
els of  Mr.  Freeborn  Garrettson,"  Phil.,  1791.  Sec.  viii.,  pp.  161,  162.  James 
O'Kelly,  who  was  present,  says  in  his  "Apology,"  p.  4,  "  Francis  [Asbury] 
from  the  north  and  John  [Dickins]  from  the  south  were  chief  speakers. 
Francis  raised  his  argument  from  an  author  [Wesley]  who  advised  the 
Methodists  never  to  leave  the  Established  Church.  But  John  drew  his 
arguments  from  the  New  Testament,  proving  thereby  that  the  true  Church 
was  not  the  Episcopal  order."    J  Asbury's  Journal,  I.  284,  309. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


PEACE   AND   prosperity:  I781-I784. 

/.  The  Conference  of  178 1. 

THIS  Conference,  at  which  were  finally  consummated  the 
proposals  and  measures  for  reunion  so  auspiciously  be- 
gun in  1780,  marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  era  of  peace  and 
prosperity.  United  American  Methodism,  under  the  single 
leadership  of  Asbury,  presents  an  unbroken  front,  and,  as 
the  revolutionary  war  draws  to  a  close,  enters,  under  fa- 
vorable conditions  of  civil  and  religious  peace,  upon  an  ag- 
gressive career  of  almost  uninterrupted  prosperity  and  con- 
quest. 

A  "preparatory"  and  a  "regular"  session  was  held,  of 
which  more  will  be  said:  of  the  regular  session  Asbury 
wrote:  "Tuesday  [April]  24.  Our  Conference  began  in 
Baltimore,  where  several  of  the  preachers  attended  from 
Virginia  and  North  Carolina. — All  but  one  agreed  to  return 
to  the  old  plan,  and  give  up  the  administration  of  the  ordi- 
nances: our  troubles  now  seem  over  from  that  quarter;  and 
there  seems  to  be  a  considerable  change  in  the  preachers 
from  North  to  South :  all  was  conducted  in  peace  and 
love."*  Watters,  the  peacemaker,  gratefully  records  that 
he  "  was  not  a  little  comforted  in  finding  all  so  united  in  the 
bonds  of  the  peaceable  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  rejoiced 
together,"  he  adds,  "that  the  Lord  had  broken  the  snare 
of  the  devil,  and  our  disputes  were  all  at  an  end."t  The 
Minutes  show  an  increase  of  more  than  two  thousand  mem- 
bers as  the  result  of  the  peaceful  and  harmonious  labors  of 
the  year,  reporting  as  they  do,  10,539  in  Society,  distributed 
in  twenty-five  circuits,  and  served  by  fifty-five  preachers, 

*  Asbury's  Journal,  I.  328.    f  Christ.  Exp.  and  Minist.  Labors,  p.  92. 

(121) 


122 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


including  General-Assistant  Asbury,  whose  labors  and  trav- 
els are  now  so  extensive  that,  according  to  established  cus- 
tom, he  takes  no  appointment.  Well  might  Jesse  Lee  de- 
clare, the  Lord  had  wonderfully  favored  the  traveling 
preachers,  so  that  we  spread  our  borders,  and  our  numbers 
increased  abundantly."  "Of  the  more  than  10,500  Metho- 
dists now  reported  in  the  country,  there  were  but  873 
north  of  the  southern  boundary  of  Pennsylvania;  9,666 
were  below  it."  * 

This  year  there  appears  for  the  first  time  a  unique  head- 
ing of  the  official  minutes  which  continues  in  the  same  form 
until  it  is  succeeded  by  the  announcement  of  minutes  taken 
at  "the  several  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church."  t  This  heading  speaks  of  the  Conference  as 
"  held  at  Choptank,  State  of  Delaware,  April  16,  1781,  and 
adjourned  to  Baltimore  the  24th  of  said  month."  $  Here  we 
discover  the  germ  of  the  modern  American  Annual  Confer- 
ence. In  England,  with  compact  territory  and  dense  popu- 
lation, it  has  never  been  found  necessary  to  divide  the  work 
by  the  organization  of  these  subordinate  bodies;  the  Irish 
Conference,  in  its  relation  to  the  British,  as  the  Americans 
cited  in  justification  of  their  action,  is  found  to  be  the  best 
precedent  and  analogy  for  the  American  plan,  now  begun 
on  a  small  scale,  but  afterwards  to  become  the  only  adequate 
solution  of  ecclesiastical  government  for  the  millions  of 
members  and  for  the  immense  territorial  expansion,  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,  hitherto  unparalleled  among 
Protestant  communions.  To  be  sure  two  Conferences  had 
been  held  in  each  of  the  preceding  years.  But  only  one  of 
the  bodies  meeting  in  1779  and  1780  was  "regular":  the 
other  must  be  set  down  as  extraordinary  in  its  call  and  ses- 
sion. Nevertheless,  experience  had  shown  the  plan  to  be 
possessed  of  obvious  advantages,  especially  for  the  conven- 
ient attendance  of  preachers,  who  were  now  widely  scat- 
tered upon  circuits,  some  of  which  were  very  remote  from 
any  single  center  at  which  the  Conference  could  convene. 

♦Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  92.  I  For  exceptions  in  1785,  17S6,  1787, 
see  ed.  1795.    J  Ed.  1795,  p.  41. 


Peace  and  Prosperity :  1 781-1784. 


123 


The  statement  in  the  minutes  of  1779  that  the  Delaware 
Conference  was  held  '*  for  the  convenience  of  the  preachers 
in  the  Northern  stations"  and  "as  preparatory  to  the  Con- 
ference in  Virginia,"  while  it  did  not  assign  all  the  reasons 
which  brought  about  that  gathering,  was  by  no  means  de- 
void of  foundation  in  fact.  Consequently,  after  the  reunion 
of  1780  had  rendered  unnecessary  the  existence  of  two  Con- 
ferences on  the  basis  of  doctrinal  or  governmental  differ- 
ences, the  conveniences  arising  from  this  arrangement  dur- 
ing the  two  years  of  estrangement,  had  so  commended  them- 
selves to  Asbury's  judgment,  and  doubtless  also  to  that  of 
the  body  of  preachers,  that  in  1781,  when  harmony  and 
unity  were  restored,  the  General-Assistant  thought  it  expe- 
dient to  appoint  two  Conferences.  Such  were  the  small  be- 
ginnings from  which  have  sprung  the  one  hundred  and  sev- 
enty-five Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  The 
minutes  contain  a  formal  statement  and  justification  of  this 
new  departure. 

"On  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  April,"  says  Jesse  Lee  in 
his  History  (p.  75),  "  the  Ninth  Conference  metin  Baltimore. 
But  previous  to  this  a  few  preachers  on  the  Eastern  Shore 
held  a  little  Conference  in  Delaware  State,  near  Choptank, 
to  make  some  arrangements  for  those  preachers  who  could 
not  go  with  them,  and  then  adjourned  (as  they  called  it)  to 
Baltimore;  so,  upon  the  whole,  it  was  considered  but  one 
Conference."  Thus  these  "preparatory"  Conferences, 
owing  to  their  irregular  origin  in  1779  and  1780,  were  still, 
in  some  quarters,  regarded  with  suspicion;  but  "upon  the 
whole  "  everybody  soon  fell  in  with  the  new  plan. 

To  this  day,  according  to  the  language  of  the  Discipline, 
a  preacher  is  "admitted  on  trial,"  not  into  a  particular  An- 
nual Conference,  but  "into  the  traveling  connection."  The 
Annual  Conferences  arose  and  continue  to  arise  from  subdi- 
visions of  the  Church,  its  territory,  and  its  one  body  of  min- 
isters, who  form  what  is  technically  called  the  "  traveling 
connection."    The  Church  did  not  arise  from  the  amalga- 


124 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


mation  of  Annual  Conferences.  The  Annual  Conference 
is  thus  a  unit  of  administration,  created  first  by  the  Superin- 
tendents for  their  convenience  and  that  of  the  preachers, 
and  later  by  the  authority  of  the  General  Conference.  This 
unit  of  administration  is  territorial,  for,  within  its  prescribed 
boundaries,  every  Annual  Conference,  great  or  small,  exer- 
cises precisely  the  same  powers,  under  the  same  rules  and 
regulations.  In  the  beginning,  however,  before  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Quadrennial  General  Conference  in  1792,  since 
legislative  powers  were  exercised  by  the  whole  body  of  the 
ministry,  with  the  approval  of  the  General-Assistant  or  Su- 
perintendent, these  local  Conferences  were  considered  sim- 
ply as  adjourned  meetings  of  the  undivided  ministry.  Such 
is  the  plain  implication  of  the  heading  of  the  Minutes,  which 
continued  till  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

At  this  Ninth  Annual  Conference  of  1781,  the  first  ques- 
tion was  intended  to  cement  indissolubly  the  union  of  1780: 

What  preachers  are  now  determined,  after  mature  consideration,  close 
observation,  and  earnest  prayer,  to  preach  the  old  Methodist  doctrine,  and 
strictly  enforce  the  discipline  as  contained  in  the  Notes,  Sermons,  and 
Minutes  published  by  Mr.  Wesley  so  far  as  they  respect  both  preachers  and 
people,  according  to  the  knowledge  we  have  of  them,  and  the  ability  God 
shall  give,  and  are  firmly  resolved  to  discountenance  a  separation  among 
either  preachers  or  people?  — (Minutes,  ed.  1795,  p.  41.) 

The  answer  embraces  the  names  of  thirty-nine  preachers, 
beginning  with  Francis  Asbury,  and  including  Lee  Roy 
Cole,  Reuben  Ellis,  Francis  Poythress,  Nelson  Reed,  Rich- 
ard Ivy,  and  Henry  WiUis,  who  had  been  leaders  of  the 
Southern  sacramental  party.  Gatch  had  previously  ceased 
to  travel,  and  the  last  question  asked  at  this  Conference  of 
1 781,  "Who  desist  from  traveling  this  year?"  includes  in 
its  answer  the  names  of  John  Dickins  and  Isham  Tatum, 
who  had  likewise  been  conspicuous  and  able  leaders  of  the 
saeramentarians,  and  of  William  Moore  and  Greenberry 
Green,  who  had  been  identified  with  the  Southern  Confer- 
ence. Cole,  WiUis,  Ivy,  Ellis,  Reed,  and  Poythress  are  all 
appointed  Assistants.    Asbury  thus  wisely  recognized  the 


Peace  and  Prosperity :  1781-1784.  125 

gifts  of  the  Southern  leaders  and  accorded  them  this  ex- 
pression of  his  esteem  and  confidence.  O'Kelly  was  not 
present  at  the  Conference:  his  name  does  not  appear  among 
those  appended  to  Question  i ;  nor  does  he  receive  an  ap- 
pointment; nor  does  he  desist  from  traveling.  Is  he  the 
preacher  intended  by  Asbury,  when  he  declares,  as  already 
noticed,  that  "All  but  one  agreed  to  return  to  the  old  plan"  ? 

Freeborn  Garrettson  is  our  sole  and  yet  sufficient  authori- 
t}-  for  the  statement  that  at  or  before  this  Conference,  a  re- 
ply had  been  received  from  Mr.  Wesley  in  answer  to  the  let- 
ters written  by  Dickins  and  Asburj'.  "  We  met,"  he  says, 
"and  received  Mr.  Wesley's  answer,  which  was  that  we 
should  continue  on  the  old  plan  until  further  direction. 
We  unanimously  agreed  to  follow  his  counsel  and  went  on 
harmoniously."  * 

At  the  Conference  of  1780  we  have  seen  the  order  given 
to  the  Assistants,  "let  all  the  deeds  be  drawn  in  substance 
after  that  in  the  printed  minutes."  We  know  that  the  deed 
contained  in  these  English  or  printed  minutes  named  Wes- 
ley's four  volumes  of  Sermons  and  his  Notes  on  the  New 
Testament  as  doctrinal  standards  of  Methodism.  At  the 
Conference  of  1781,  in  this  answer  to  the  first  question, 
which  was  designed  to  heal  existing  dissensions  and  become 
once  more  an  enduring  bond  of  union,  these  doctrinal  stand- 
ards are  explicitly  mentioned.  The  "old"  plan,  the  "old" 
Methodist  doctrine,  the  "old"  Methodist  discipline — on 
these  original  foundations  alone  would  Asbury  and  his  Con- 
ference consent  to  build  the  temple  of  American  Methodism, 
one  and  undivided.  Of  the  fact,  the  historian  cannot  fail  to 
take  notice:  our  discussion  of  what  it  involved  is  once  more 
postponed  to  a  later  date. 

It  is  not  necessar)'^  that  we  should  take  further  notice  of 
what  have  since  become  the  ordinary  disciplinary  or  minute 
questions  under  which  the  regular  business  of  Annual  Con- 
ferences is  transacted.  The  questions  and  answers  which 
embrace  the  legislation  of  this  Conference,  the  rules  and 

*  Semi-centennial  Sermon. 


126  American  Methodism  to  178^. 


regulations  imposed  on  preachers  and  people,  need  not  de- 
tain us,  except  the  explicit  recognition  of  two  years  as  the 
legal  period  of  ministerial  probation. 

^iies.  4.  Should  we  take  the  preachers  into  full  connection  after  one 
year's  trial?  Or,  would  it  not  be  better,  after  considering  how  young  they 
are  in  age,  grace,  and  gifts,  to  try  them  two  years;  unless  it  be  one  of 
double  testimony,  of  whom  there  is  general  approbation?    Ans.  Yes.* 

At  the  Fluvanna,  or  regular,  Conference  of  1779,  the  pe- 
riod of  probation  for  admission  into  full  connection  had 
been  extended  to  two  years;  but  as  Asbury  and  the  north- 
ern brethren  were  not  present,  the  Conference  of  1781  for- 
mally enacted  the  two  years'  term,  which  has  continued  to 
this  day.  A  necessity  also  arose  for  directing  preachers  in 
charge  not  to  undo  the  action  of  their  predecessors  with 
regard  to  preaching  places,  without  inquiring  as  to  its 
grounds.  Verj'  wholesome  legislation  against  the  read- 
mission  of  expelled  members  without  evidence  of  repent- 
ance may  be  profitably  considered  in  our  own  day. 
Courses  of  study  had  not  yet  been  appointed  for  traveling 
preachers,  but  their  germ  may  be  discovered  in  the  answer 
to  Question  8,  which  directed  the  preachers  to  read  the 
"Rules,"  the  "  Character  of  a  Methodist,"  and  the  Plain 
Account  of  Christian  Perfection."  The  practical  and  ex- 
perimental character  of  this  reading  recommended  by  the 
Conference  is  significant.  Commenting  upon  a  correspond- 
ence which  Wesley  had  in  1746  with  Dr.  Philip  Doddridge, 
who  was  then  at  the  head  of  a  Dissenting  Seminary,  asking 
for  suggestions  of  books  to  be  studied  by  his  preachers,  Mr. 
Tyerman  observes: 

Of  necessity,  then,  preaching  was  solely  on  the  fundamental  points  of 
experimental  and  practical  religion;  and  hence,  their  unequaled  success  in 
awakening  and  converting  sinners.  .  .  .  The  effect  of  this  unadorned 
preaching  of  the  greatest  of  all  verities  was  surprising.  Under  these  un- 
tutored discourses,  people  found  themselves  emerging  out  of  thick  darkness 
into  light,  which  St.  Peter  aptly  describes  as  "■marvelousr  These  were  glo- 
rious results,  and  almost  make  one  wish,  that  among  the  cultivated  and  cap- 
tivating preachers  of  the  present  day,  who  can  discourse  most  eloquently 


•Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  p.  42;  ed.  of  1S13,  p.  a8. 


Peace  and  Prosperity :  1781-1784..  127 


upon  any  subject,  from  Eve's  fig  leaves  up  to  Aaron's  wardrobe,  or  £rom  the 
architecture  of  Noah's  ark  down  to  the  whale  that  swallowed  Jonah,  there 
were  a  sprinkling  of  men  whose  preaching  powers,  like  those  of  Wesley's 
first  helpers,  were  confined  to  an  incessant  utterance,  in  burning  if  some- 
what boorish  words,  of  the  glorious  old  truths  now-a-days  too  much  neg- 
lected* 

//.  The  Conference  of  1782. 

The  Tenth  Annual  Conference  was  "held  at  Ellis's 
Preaching-house  in  Sussex  county,  Virginia,  [Wednesday] 
April  17,  1782,  and  adjourned  to  Baltimore,  [Monday]  May 
21."  t  Of  the  legislative  relations  of  the  two  sessions  Jesse 
Lee  remarks: 

As  the  Conference  in  the  North  was  of  the  longest  standing,  and  withal 
composed  of  the  oldest  preachers,  it  was  allowed  greater  privileges  than 
that  in  the  South,  especially  in  making  rules  and  forming  regulations  for 
the  societies.  Accordingly,  when  anything  was  agreed  to  In  the  Virginia 
Conference,  and  afterwards  disapproved  of  in  the  Baltimore  Conference,  it 
was  dropped.  But  if  any  rule  was  fixed  and  determined  on  at  the  Balti- 
more Conference,  the  preachers  in  the  South  were  under  the  necessity  of 
abiding  by  it.  J 

For  a  full  presentation  of  the  extant  data  touching  "  The 
Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government  in  American 
Methodism,"  however,  see  that  chapter  in  the  author's  "Mak- 
ing of  Methodism. ' '  ( See,  also.  Appendix  VI.  of  this  History. ) 

Asbury's  Journal  contains  the  following  interesting  no- 
tices of  the  session  of  the  Virginia  Conference  at  Ellis's: 

Tuesday  [April]  16.  We  set  out;  and  on  the  next  day,  (17th)  reached 
Ellis's,  at  whose  house  we  held  the  conference.  The  people-  flocked  to- 
gether for  preaching:  Mr.  Jarratt  gave  usa  profitable  discourse  on  the  14th 
chapter  of  Hosea.  In  the  evening  the  preachers  met  in  conference:  as 
there  had  been  much  distress  felt  by  those  of  them  of  Virginia,  relative  to 
the  administration  of  the  ordinances,  I  proposed  to  such  as  w  ere  so  dis- 
posed, to  enter  into  a  written  agreement  to  cleave  to  the  old  plan  in  which 
we  had  been  so  greatly  blessed,  that  we  might  have  the  greater  confidence 
in  each  other,  and  know  on  whom  to  depend:  this  instrument  was  signed 
by  the  greater  part  of  the  preachers  without  hesitation.  .  .  .  With  the 
exception  of  one,  all  the  signatures  of  the  preachers  present  were  obtained.  § 

♦Life  and  Times,  I.  516,  S'T- 

fMinutes,  ed.  1795,  p.  49;  ed.  1813,  p.  33.    The  days  of  the  week  are  fixed  by  Asbury. 
tHist.  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  78,  79.   Of.  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee,  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  100,  loi 
Dr.  Lee  adds,  "A  preacher  in  one  division  possessed  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  other." 
^Journal,  I.  344,  345. 


128 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


In  Asbury's  Journal  we  have  a  most  instructive  picture  of 
the  ecclesiastical  relations  which  Methodism  gladly  sus- 
tained in  those  days  to  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America, 
as  well  as  in  England,  whenever  a  friendly  rector  permitted 
and  encouraged  it.  The  General-Assistant  preaches  at  the 
humble  "chapel"  of  the  Methodist  society,  and  then  at- 
tends "  Church"  to  receive  the  sacrament,  and,  by  invita- 
tion, to  read  the  lessons  of  the  day  before  the  loving  sermon 
of  the  pious  rector.  The  Methodist  preacher  becomes  the 
guest  of  his  clerical  friend,  and  the  two  set  out  together  for 
the  Conference,  where  the  rector  preaches  the  opening  ser- 
mon. The  same  preacher  delivers  the  closing  discourse 
and  we  do  not  wonder  that  the  Conference  adopted  a  min- 
ute acknowledging  their  obligations  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jarratt, 
for  his  kind  and  friendly  services  to  the  preachers  and  peo- 
ple, and  advising  the  preachers  in  the  South  to  consult  him 
in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Asbury.* 

It  will  be  noticed  that,  according  to  Asbury's  memoran- 
dum, "  with  the  exception  of  one,  all  the  signatures  of  the 
preachers  present  were  obtained"  to  the  agreement  con- 
cerning the  ordinances.  Though  he  was  doubtless  the 
single  exception  of  the  preceding  year,  James  O'Kelly  is 
not  intended  by  Asbury's  present  entry;  for  he  not  only  re- 
ceived an  appointment,  but  on  March  18,  preceding  the  Con- 
ference, had  promised  Asbury  "  to  join  heartily  in  our  con- 
nection." f  In  truth  the  last  stand  for  the  sacraments  was 
made  by  the  local  preachers,  who,  disaffected  toward  their 
traveling  brethren,  sought  to  influence  the  people  against 
them  also.    Thursday,  Dec.  6,  1781,  Asbury  writes: 

Came  to  Baltimore.  Here  I  received  letters  from  Virginia,  by  which  I 
learn  that  affairs  are  not  so  bad  in  Virginia  as  I  feared:  a  few  of  the  local 
preachers  have  made  some  stir,  and  the  traveling  preachers  have  with- 
drawn from  them  and  their  adherents.  .  .  .  Virginia,  Wednesday  19. 
.  .  .  I  find  the  spirit  of  party  among  some  of  the  people:  the  local 
preachers  tell  them  of  the  ordinances,  and  they  catch  at  them  like  fish  at  a 
bait;  but  when  they  are  informed  that  they  will  have  to  give  up  the  travel- 
ing preachers,  I  apprehend  they  will  not  be  so  fond  of  their  new  plan ;  and 


♦MlnutM,  ed.  of  1795,  p.  55;  ed.  of  1813,  p.  37.    t  Journal,  I.  343. 


Peace  and  Prosperity :  1781-1784.  129 


if  I  judge  right,  che  last  struggle  of  a  yielding  party  will  be  made  at  the  ap- 
proaching [Quarterly]  Conference  to  be  held  at  Manakintown.    .    .  . 
Tuesday,  January  i,  1782.    .    .    .    There  is  considerable  distress  amongst 
our  societies,  caused  by  some  of  the  local  preachers,  who  are  not  satisfied 
unless  they  administer  the  ordinances  without  order  or  ordination* 

Thus  the  traveling  preachers  had  all  at  last  been  brought 
into  line :  that  the  battle  went  quickly  and  decisively  against 
the  local  brethren,  there  is  Uttle  room  to  doubt. 

Of  the  Baltimore  session,  Asbury  gives  but  a  short  notice: 

Monday,  21st.  A  few  of  us  began  Conference  in  Baltimore.  Next  day 
we  had  a  full  meeting.  The  preachers  all  signed  the  agreement  proposed 
at  the  Virginia  Conference,  and  there  was  a  unanimous  resolve  to  adhere  to 
the  old  Methodist  plan.  We  spent  most  of  the  day  in  examining  the 
preachers. 

Wednesday,  23d.  We  had  many  things  before  us.  Our  printing  plan 
was  suspended  for  the  present  for  want  of  funds. 

Friday  25th.  Was  set  apart  for  fasting  and  prayer.  We  had  a  love-feast. 
The  Lord  was  present  and  all  was  well.  The  preachers,  in  general,  were  sat- 
isfied. I  found  myself  burthened  with  labors  and  cares.  We  now  have 
fifty-nine  traveling  preachers,  and  eleven  thousand  and  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-five  in  society .f 

His  statistics  are  identical  wath  those  given  in  the  Min- 
utes :  X  including  himself,  there  were  now  sixty  American 
itinerants,  who  were  appointed  to  the  charge  of  twenty-six 
circuits. 

In  addition  to  the  usual  disciplinary  or  minute  questions, 
the  following  concerning  rules  and  regulations  were  asked: 

Ques.  13.  How  shall  we  more  effectually  guard  against  disorderly  trav- 
eling preachers.'  Write  at  the  bottom  of  every  certificate:  The  authority 
this  conveys  is  limited  to  next  Conference. 

Ques.  14.  How  must  we  do  if  a  preacher  will  not  desist  after  being  found 
guilty.'  Let  the  nearest  assistant  stop  him  immediately.  In  brother  As- 
bury's  absence  let  the  preachers  inform  the  people  of  these  rules. 

Ques.  15.  How  shall  we  more  effectually  guard  against  disorderly  local 
preachers.'  Write  at  the  bottom  of  the  certificate:  This  conveys  authority 
no  longer  than  you  walk  uprightly,  and  submit  to  the  direction  of  the  as- 
sistant preacher. 

Ques.  16.  By  what  rule  shall  we  conduct  ourselves  toward  the  preachers 
and  people  that  separate  from  us.'    Disown  them.  § 

Dr.  L.  M.  Lee  had  in  his  possession  a  manuscript  copy  of 


♦Journal,  L  337,  338. 
tJournal,  I.  346. 
9 


fEd.  of  1795,  p.  S3;  ed.  of  1813,  p.  36. 
§  Minutes,  ed.  1795,  p.  54;  ed.  1813,  p.  3d 


I30 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


the  minutes  of  the  Conferences  held  at  Ellis's  Meeting- 
house for  the  years  1782,  1783,  and  1784:  the  questions 
and  answers,  according  to  this  manuscript,  correspond 
with  those  of  the  printed  minutes,  with  the  exception  of 
the  answer  to  Question  16,  which  reads:  "Put  the  people 
out  of  Society  when  they  receive,  and  the  preachers  when 
they  administer,  the  ordinances,  if  they  have  been  previous- 
ly warned."  *  It  is  not  improbable  that  this  fuller  answer, 
given  at  the  session  at  Ellis's,  was  altered  at  Baltimore  to 
the  shorter,  as  being  sufficiently  obvious. 

For  the  first  time  a  certificate  of  membership  is  ordered 
for  the  laity  when  removing,  (Ques.  17)  and  the  next 
question  affords  an  explanation  of  how  it  comes  to  pass  that 
both  Gatch  and  Garrettson  depose,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the 
consideration  of  the  sacramental  question  at  the  Conference 
of  1777,  the  last  in  which  Mr.  Rankin  presided,  while  the 
printed  minutes  contain  no  reference  to  the  matter:  "  Ques. 
18.  Shall  we  erase  that  question  proposed  in  Deer  Creek 
Conference  respecting  the  ordinances?  Undoubtedly  we 
must.  It  can  have  no  place  in  our  Minutes  while  we  stand 
to  our  agreement  signed  in  Conference:  it  is,  therefore, 
disannulled." 

Doubtless  the  same  principles  were  appUed  to  the  expur- 
gation of  the  Fluvanna  and  Manakintown  minutes;  and  so 
the  printed  minutes,  first  collected  in  1795,  contain  no  refer- 
ence to  the  ordinations  of  Methodist  preachers  and  their  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments  before  1784. 

The  next  question  is  important:  "  Ques.  19.  Do  the 
brethren  in  Conference  unanimously  choose  brother  As- 
bury  to  act  according  to  Mr.  Wesley's  original  appoint- 
ment, and  preside  over  the  American  Conferences  and  the 
whole  work?  Yes." 

We  have  seen  how  this  action  had  been  previously  taken 
at  the  irregular  Delaware  Conference  of  1779  and  how  in 
1780,  at  the  time  of  reconciHation  in  the  Virginia  Confer- 
ence, Mr.  Asbury's  superintendency  had  apparently  been 


*Li£e  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  100-102. 


Peace  and  Prosperity :  iy8 1-1784. 


31 


quietly  acquiesced  in;  no  formal  action  had  been  deemed 
necessary  in  1781 ;  but  in  1782  Mr.  Asbury  was  unanimous- 
ly chosen  to  "preside  over  the  American  Conferences  and 
the  whole  work,"  "Mr.  Wesley's  original  appointment" 
was  also  mentioned,  however,  and  thus  Mr.  Asbury's  au- 
thority rested  upon  the  double  foundation  of  original  ap- 
pointment by  Wesley  and  election  by  the  preachers.  He 
was  growing  familiar  with  election  by  the  Conference,  and 
these  precedents  doubtless  suggested  to  his  mind  the  alterna- 
tive of  election  to  the  Episcopal  office  in  1784,  by  which  he 
sought  and  secured  independence  of  Mr.  Wesley's  hitherto 
unquestioned  supremacy. 

For  the  first  time  the  following  question  was  asked  in 
Conference:  "  Where  and  when  shall  our  next  Conferences 
be  held?"  and  the  answer  was  given  "  For  Virginia  the  first 
Tuesday,  and  in  Baltimore  the  last  Wednesday,  in  May." 
And  thus,  as  Jesse  Lee  remarks,  "it  was  now  settled  and 
fixed  to  have  two  Conferences  in  each  year." 

///.  The  Conference  of  lySj. 

The  Eleventh  Annual  Conference,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment of  the  preceding  year,  began  its  session  at  Ellis's 
Preaching-house,  Sussex  County,  Va.,  Tuesda}^  May  6, 
1783,  whence  it  adjourned  to  assemble  again  at  Baltimore, 
Wednesday,  May  27.  General-Assistant  Asbury  was  pres- 
ent and  presided  in  both  sessions.  "After  long  rides 
through  Fluvanna  and  Orange  circuits,"  he  writes,  "I 
came  to  Petersburg  on  Monday  the  fifth  of  May ;  and  the 
next  day  to  Ellis's  chapel."  Thus  the  faithful  itinerant  su- 
perintendent was  promptly  on  hand,  on  the  day  appointed 
a  year  before,  to  meet  his  Virginia  Conference,  though  it  is 
probable  the  Conference  did  not  formally  assemble  until 
Wednesday  morning.  Asbury- says,  "  Wednesday  7.  Our 
Conference  began  at  this  place.  Some  young  laborers  were 
taken  in  to  assist  in  spreading  the  gospel,  which  greatly 
prospers  in  the  North.  We  all  agree  in  the  spirit  of  African 
liberty,  and  strong  testimonies  were  borne  in  its  favor  in  our 


132 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


love-feast:  our  affairs  were  conducted  in  love."  His  notice 
of  the  Baltimore  session  is  very  brief:  "  Tuesday,  26.  We 
began  our  Conference  with  what  preachers  were  present. 
On  Wednesday  we  had  a  full  assembly,  which  lasted  until 
Friday."  * 

The  statistics  show  thirty-nine  circuits,  (New  York  and 
"Norfolk  reappearing  on  the  list,)  with  13,740  members,  an 
increase  of  1,955,  served  by  eighty-two  itinerants,  excluding 
the  General- Assistant.  "  There  were  now  but  1,623  Meth- 
odists north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line ;  12,117  south  of  it,"  f 

The  Conference  maintained  its  advanced  ground  on  slav- 
ery and  temperance: 

^ues.  10.  What  shall  be  done  with  our  local  preachers  who  hold  slaves, 
contrary  to  the  laws  which  authorize  their  freedom,  in  any  of  the  United 
States?  Ans.  We  will  try  them  another  year.  In  the  meantime  let  every 
Assistant  deal  faithfully  and  plainly  with  every  one,  and  report  to  the  next 
Conference.    It  may  then  be  necessary  to  suspend  them. 

^ues.  II.  Should  our  friends  be  permitted  to  make  spirituous  liquors, 
sell,  and  drink  them  in  drams.'  Afis.  By  no  means;  we  think  it  wrong  in 
nature  and  consequences,  and  desire  all  our  preachers  to  teach  the  people 
by  precept  and  example  to  put  away  this  evil. 

At  the  preceding  Conference  it  had  been  enacted  that 
members  removing  to  different  parts  of  the  Connection 
should  take  a  certificate  of  membership  in  the  Society. 
The  revolutionary  war  being  now  over  and  intercourse  opened 
between  England  and  America,  it  was  natural  to  expect  an 
influx  of  European  Methodists,  both  preachers  and  people. 
Accordingly,  in  answer  to  the  next  question,  the  Conference 
determined,  "We  will  not  receive  them  without  a  letter  of 
recommendation,  which  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
truth  of."  At  the  Conference  of  1778  general  stewards  for 
the  Conference  had  been  appointed;  in  1782  the  amount  of 
the  Conference  collection  is  stated  in  the  minutes,  and  spe- 
cific directions  are  given  for  the  supply  of  the  "  deficien- 
cies "  of  the  preachers;  accordingly  the  final  question  of  this 
session  is,  "Who  are  appointed  as  General  Stewards? 
Ans.  Samuel  Owings,  John  Orick." 

*  For  all  these  extracts,  see  Journal  I.  356. 
•f  Stevens,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  112. 


Peace  and  Prosperity:  iy8i-iy8^. 


133 


The  Conference  adjourns  to  meet  in  "  Baltimore,  the 
fourth  Tuesday  in  May."  So  fully  and  generally  are  the 
Virginia  and  Baltimore  sessions  now  recognized  as  the  sep- 
arate meetings  of  a  single  Conference,  that  though  no  men- 
tion of  a  preliminary-  session  is  made  in  the  adjournment  of 
1783,  such  an  assembly  gathers  as  usual  at  ElHs's  in  1784. 
It  was  found  necessary,  also,  to  limit  the  attendance  at  the 
Conference  sessions  to  "  the  Assistants,  and  those  who  are 
to  be  received  into  connection."  The  supply  of  the  cir- 
cuits during  the  time  of  Conference,  and  not  the  entertain- 
ment of  the  body,  was  the  difficulty.  Hence  at  this  Confer- 
ence, the  Assistants  are  directed,  in  time  of  Conference, 
to  "engage  as  many  local  preachers  as  can  be  depended 
upon,  and  such  among  them  as  are  needy  to  be  allowed 
for  their  labor  in  proportion  with  the  traveling  preachers."  * 

About  three  months  after  Conference,  Asbury  wrote  to 
Shadford  concerning  the  American  work.  After  giving 
the  statistics,  he  mentions  four  clergymen  who  have  "be- 
haved themselves  friendly  in  attending  Quarterly  Meetings." 
They  were  Mr.  Jarratt,  in  Virginia;  Mr.  Pettigrew,  in  North 
Carolina;  Dr.  McGaw,  of  Philadelphia;  and  Dr.  Mogden, 
in  East  Jersey.  He  briefly  rehearses  the  sacramental  diffi- 
culties, and  concludes: 

I  travel  4,cxx)  miles  in  a  year,  all  weathers,  among  rich  and  poor,  Dutch 
and  English.  O  my  dear  Shadford,  it  would  take  a  month  to  write  out  and 
speak  what  I  want  you  to  know.  The  most  momentous  is  my  constant 
communion  with  God  as  my  God;  my  glorious  victory  over  the  world  and 
the  devil.  I  am  continually  with  God.  I  preach  frequently,  and  with  more 
enlargement  of  heart  than  ever.  O  America!  America!  it  certainly  will  be 
the  glory  of  the  world  for  religion!  I  have  loved,  and  do  love  America.  I 
think  it  became  necessary  after  the  fall  that  Government  should  lose  it. 
Your  old  national  pride,  as  a  people,  has  got  a  blow.  You  must  abate  a 
little.t 

IV.  The  Conference  of  1784. 

The  Twelfth  and  last  Annual  Conference  before  the 
Episcopal  organization  of  American  Methodism  was  "be- 


*For  the  preceding,  see  Minutes,  ed.  1795,  pp.  61-64;  pp.  41,  42. 

I  Quoted  from  a  forgotten  periodical,  by  Stevens,  II.  127,  128. 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


gun  at  Ellis's  Preaching-house,  Virginia,  April  30,  1784, 
and  ended  at  Baltimore,  May  28th,  following."*  Asbury 
presided  in  both  sessions.  Of  the  meeting  at  Ellis's  he 
says,  '*  Our  business  was  conducted  with  uncommon  love 
and  unity."  Of  the  Baltimore  session  he  writes,  "Our 
Conference  began,  all  in  peace.  William  Glendenning  had 
been  devising  a  plan  to  lay  me  aside,  or  at  least  to  abridge 
my  powers:  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  settled  the  point,  and  all 
was  happy.    The  Conference  rose  on  Friday  morning."  f 

This  entry  introduces  an  important  topic  which  cannot  be 
passed  over.  On  Christmas  eve,  1783,  Asbury  reached  the 
home  of  Mr.  Pettigrew,  the  friendly  Episcopal  clergyman 
before  mentioned,  in  North  Carolina,  and  makes  this  im- 
portant minute : 

Here  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  he  directs  me  to  act 
as  general  assistant,  and  to  receive  no  preachers  from  Europe  that  are  not 
recommended  by  him ;  nor  any  in  America  who  will  not  submit  to  me  and 
to  the  Minutes  of  the  Conference.  J 

Stevens  says  the  letter  was  addressed  to  the  Conference, 
and  Jesse  Lee  gives  "an  extract:" 

Bristol,  October  3,  1783. 

1.  Let  all  of  you  be  determined  to  abide  by  the  Methodist  doctrine  and 
discipline,  published  in  the  four  volumes  of  Sermons,  and  the  Notes  upon 
the  New  Testament,  together  with  the  Large  Minutes  of  the  Conference. 

2.  Beware  of  preachers  coming  from  Great  Britain  or  Ireland  without  a 
full  recommendation  from  me.  Three  of  our  traveling  preachers  here 
eagerly  desired  to  go  to  America,  but  I  could  not  approve  of  it  by  any 
means,  because  I  am  not  satisfied  that  they  thoroughly  like  either  our  disci- 
pline or  doctrine.  I  think  they  differ  from  our  judgment  in  one  or  both. 
Therefore,  if  these  or  any  others  come  without  my  recommendation,  take 
care  how  you  receive  them. 

3.  Neither  should  you  receive  any  preachers,  however  recommended, 
who  will  not  be  subject  to  the  American  Conference,  and  cheerfully  con- 
form to  the  Minutes  both  of  the  English  and  American  Conferences. 

4.  I  do  not  wish  our  American  brethren  to  receive  any  who  make  any 
difficulty  of  receiving  Francis  Asbury  as  the  General  Assistant. 

Undoubtedly  the  greatest  danger  to  the  work  of  God  in  America  is  likely 
to  arise  either  from  preachers  coming  from  Europe,  or  from  such  as  will 
arise  from  among  yourselves  speaking  perverse  things,  or  bringing  in 
among  you   new  doctrines,  particularly  Calvinian.    You   should  guard 


•Minutes,  ed.  1795,  p.  65;  ed.  1813,  p.  43.    t Journal,  ed.  1821,  I.  367.    JJournal,  I.  363. 


Peace  and  Prosperity :  1781-1784..  135 


against  this  with  all  possible  care,  for  it  is  far  easier  to  keep  them  out  than 
to  thrust  them  out. 

I  commend  you  all  to  the  grace  of  God,  and  am  your  affectionate  friend 
and  brother,  John  Wesley* 

It  is  not  improbable  that  this  letter  was  suggested  by  an 
epistle  of  Edward  Dromgoole's  to  Wesley,  under  date  of 
May  24,  1783,  in  which  he  said: 

The  preachers  at  present  are  united  to  Mr.  Asbury,  and  esteem  him  very 
highly  in  love  for  his  work's  sake,  and  earnestly  desire  his  continuance  on 
the  continent  during  his  natural  life;  and  to  act  as  he  does  at  present,  to 
wit,  to  superintend  the  whole  work  and  go  through  all  the  circuits  once  a 
year.  He  is  now  well  acquainted  with  the  country,  with  the  preachers  and 
people,  and  has  a  large  share  in  the  affections  of  both ;  therefore  they  would 
not  willingly  part  Avith  him. 

Asbuiy  received  the  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley  exactly  one 
year  before  the  assembling  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 
Mr.  Wesley  had  appointed  no  General-Assistant  for  Ameri- 
ca since  Mr.  Rankin's  return  in  1777.  Asbury  had  been 
unanimously  chosen  to  the  office  by  the  Conference  of  1782. 
Mr.  Wesley  now  formally  confirms  this  election,  of  which  he 
had  doubtless  been  informed,  wishing  no  preachers  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  American  Conference  who  made  "  any  diffi- 
cult}- of  receiving  Francis  Asbury  as  the  General-Assistant." 
On  the  eve  of  the  Episcopal  organization  of  our  Methodism, 
Asbury  holds  alone  the  general  superintendency  by  a  double 
tenure:  Wesley's  appointment  protects  him  against  a  rebel- 
lious Glendenning  at  home ;  the  Conference  election  leaves 
him  not  absolutely  in  the  hands  of  the  Methodist  patriarch 
abroad.  We  can  clearly  see  why  he  clung  to  the  privilege 
and  support  of  Conference  election,  when,  in  this  vtry  year, 
Wesley  promoted  him  to  the  office  of  General  Superintend- 
ent or  "  Bishop."  Yet  by  this  letter  Wesley  asserts  his  con- 
tinued authority  over  American  Methodism,  and  that  author- 
ity is  not  disputed  either  by  Asbur}^  or  the  Conference.  Mr. 
Wesley's  first  direction  defines  clearly,  once  more,  the  sin- 
gle doctrinal  and  disciplinary  basis  of  Methodism.  Euro- 
pean preachers  holding  other  views  are  to  be  excluded  from 


*Hist.  of  Methodists,  pp.  85,  86. 


136 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


the  American  connection.  The  American  minutes  are  to 
have  equal  authority  with  the  English;  and  Asbury  is  to 
continue,  by  his  authority,  as  General-Assistant.  The  ef- 
fects of  this  letter  are  clearly  discernible  in  the  legislation 
of  the  Annual  Conference  held  in  the  spring  of  1784,  most 
of  its  suggestions  being  summed  up  in  the  answer  to  a  single 
question : 

^ues.  21.  How  shall  we  conduct  ourselves  toward  European  preachers? 
Ans.  If  they  are  recommended  by  Mr.  Wesley,  will  be  subject  to  the  Amer- 
ican Conference,  preach  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  four  volumes  of  Sermons 
and  Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  keep  the  circuits  they  are  appointed  to, 
follow  the  directions  of  the  London  and  American  Minutes,  and  be  subject 
to  Francis  Asbury  as  General  Assistant,  whilst  he  stands  approved  by  Mr. 
Wesley  and  the  Conference,  we  shall  receive  them;  but  if  they  walk  con- 
trary to  the  above  directions,  no  ancient  rite  or  appointment  shall  prevent 
their  being  excluded  from  our  connection. 

Asbury' s  double  tenure,  it  will  be  observed,  is  carefully 
guarded  by  the  language,  "whilst  he  stands  approved  by 
Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Conference."  The  doctrinal  stand- 
ards, here  once  more  formally  adopted  by  Conference  ac- 
tion, it  seems  most  appropriate  should  be  reserved  for  pres- 
entation in  the  separate  chapter  following.  We  are  now 
on  the  eve  of  the  transformation  of  the  Societies  into  a 
Church:  a  new  nation  has  been  born,  and  the  Protestant 
ecclesiasticism  which  has  largely  supplied  its  religious  needs 
is  about  to  be  formed.  At  this  juncture  it  seems  fitting  that 
we  should  take  a  formal  survey  of  its  standards  of  doctrinal 
belief  and  public  religious  teaching. 

Anti-slavery  legislation,  concerning  members,  local 
preachers,  and  itinerants,  was  passed  in  these  terms: 

^ues.  12.  What  shall  we  do  with  our  friends  that  will  buy  and  sell  slaves? 
Ans.  If  they  buy  with  no  other  design  than  to  hold  them  as  slaves,  and  have 
been  previously  warned,  they  shall  be  expelled,  and  permitted  to  sell  on  no 
consideration. 

^ues.  13.  What  shall  we  do  with  our  local  preachers  who  will  not  eman- 
cipate their  slaves  in  the  States  where  the  laws  admit  it?  Arts.  Try  those 
in  Virginia  another  year,  and  suspend  the  preachers  in  Maryland,  Delaware, 
Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jersey. 

^ues.  22.  What  shall  be  done  with  our  traveling  preachers  that  now  are, 
or  hereafter  shall  be,  possessed  of  slaves,  and  refuse  to  manumit  them  where 
the  law  permits?    Ans  Employ  them  no  more. 


Peace  and  Prosperity:  1781-1784.  137 


Jesse  Lee,  who  was  present  when  these  regulations  were 
placed  on  the  statute  book,  and  witnessed  their  operation 
among  preachers  and  people,  observes:  "  However  good  the 
intention  of  the  preachers  might  be  in  framing  these  rules, 
we  are  well  assured  that  they  never  were  of  any  particular 
service  to  our  societies.  Some  of  the  slaves,  however,  ob- 
tained their  freedom  in  consequence  of  these  rules." 

For  the  first  time  the  question  is  asked  in  the  Minutes, 
*'  What  preachers  have  died  this  year?  "  The  General- As- 
sistant is  allowed  "twenty-four  pounds,  with  his  expenses 
for  horses  and  traveUng,  brought  to,  and  paid  at  Confer- 
ence." Thirteen  wives  of  preachers  are  allowed  £302, 
against  £206  for  eleven  the  year  before.  The  preachers 
are  directed  carefully  to  avoid  superfluity  in  dress  and  to 
speak  frequently  and  faithfully  against  it  in  all  the  societies. 

Question  8  enacts  a  very  important  measure:  "How 
shall  we  keep  good  order  among  the  preachers  and  provide 
for  contingencies  in  the  vacancy  of  Conference  and  absence 
of  the  General-Assistant?  Ans.  Let  any  three  Assistants 
do  what  may  be  thought  most  eligible,  call  to  an  account, 
change,  suspend,  or  receive  a  preacher  till  Conference." 
Thus  the  provisions  for  arrest  and  trial  were  increasing  and 
the  itinerants  were  being  held  to  a  more  rigid  supervision 
and  account.  The  office  of  presiding  elder  did  not  yet  ex- 
ist. The  Assistants  had  charge  of  the  "  Helpers  "  in  their 
circuits,  but  there  was  no  officer  intermediate  between  them 
and  the  General-Assistant,  who  must  travel  throughout  all  the 
circuits  from  North  Carolina  to  New  York  and  by  personal 
knowledge  of  the  men  and  the  work,  form  his  judgment  for 
making  the  appointments  and  directing  affairs  at  Conference. 

As  far  back  as  1774,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  ordered  that 
every  Assistant  should  take  a  general  collection,  "to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  sinking  of  the  debts  on  the  houses  and  relieving 
the  preachers  in  want."  This  primitive  Church  extension 
movement  is  now  a  little  further  developed : 

^iies.  10.  What  can  be  done  towards  erecting  new  chapels,  and  dis- 
charging the  debts  on  those  ah-eady  built?  Atis.  Let  the  assistant  preacher 
put  a  yearly  subscription  through  the  circuits,  and  insist  upon  every  mem- 


138 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


ber  that  is  not  supported  by  charity  to  give  something;  let  them  subscribe 
the  first  quarter  and  pay  the  second ;  and  the  money  to  be  applied  by  two 
General  Stewards." 

For  the  first  time,  three  Conference  sessions  are  appoint- 
ed for  the  following  year,  "  The  first  at  Green  Hill's  (North 
Carolina),  Friday  29th  and  Saturday  30th  of  April;  the  sec- 
ond in  Virginia,  at  Conference  Chapel,  May  8th;  the  third 
in  Maryland,  Baltimore,  the  15th  day  of  June."  *  So  is 
the  work  expanding:  before  these  three  Annual  Confer- 
ences, as  we  may  venture  to  call  them,  shall  assemble,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  will  have  been  organized,  and 
General  Superintendents  Coke  and  Asbury,  with  their  as- 
sociated Elders  and  Deacons,  will  be  the  leaders  of  the 
American  itinerancy.  All  three  of  these  Conferences  were 
in  the  South.  The  last  statistics  reported  before  the  organ- 
ization of  the  Church  give  "  but  1,607  Methodists  north  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  and  13,381  south  of  it."t 

Of  the  last  Conference  of  the  colonial  period  of  Amer- 
ican Methodism,  and  of  Asbury  its  chief,  Thomas  Ware, 
who  was  present,  shall  sketch  the  picture : 

I  doubt  whether  there  ever  has  been  a  Conference  among  us  in  which 
an  equal  number  could  be  found  in  proportion  to  the  whole  so  dead  to  the 
world  and  so  gifted  and  enterprising  as  were  present  at  the  Conference  of 
1784.  Among  these  pioneers,  Asbury,  by  common  consent,  stood  first  and 
chief.  There  was  something  in  his  person,  his  eye,  his  mien,  and  in  the 
music  of  his  voice, which  Interested  all  who  saw  and  heard  him.  He  pos- 
sessed much  natural  wit,  and  was  capable  of  the  severest  satire;  but  grace 
and  good  sense  so  far  predominated,  that  he  never  descended  to  anything 
beneath  the  dignity  of  a  man  and  a  Christian  minister.  In  prayer  he  ex- 
celled. Had  he  been  equally  eloquent  in  preaching,  he  would  have  excited 
universal  admiration  as  a  pulpit  orator.  But  when  he  was  heard  for  the  first 
time,  the  power  and  unction  with  which  he  prayed  would  naturally  so 
raise  the  expectation  of  his  auditors  that  they  were  liable  to  be  disappointed 
with  his  preaching;  for,  although  he  always  preached  well,  in  his  sermons 
he  seldom,  if  ever,  reached  that  high  and  comprehensive  flow  of  thought 
and  expression — that  expansive  and  appropriate  diction — which  always 
characterized  his  prayers.  This  may  be  accounted  for,  in  part  at  least, 
from  the  fact  stated  by  the  late  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson  in  preaching  his 
funeral  sermon.  "He  prayed,"  said  the  venerable  Garrettson,  "  the  best, 
and  he  prayed  the  most  of  any  man  I  ever  knew."  J 


*Kor  the  preceding,  see  Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  pp.  65-73;  ed.  of  1S13,  pp.  46-48.  f  Stevens, 
Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  132.    X  Sketches  of  the  Life  and  Travels  of  Rev.  Thomas  Ware,  pp.  83,  84. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  DOCTRINAL  STANDARDS  OF  ECUMENICAL  METHODISM. 

THE  first  restrictive  rule  limiting  the  powers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  distinguishes  between  "Articles  of  Re- 
ligion "  and  "  our  present  existing  and  established  stand- 
ards of  doctrine."  The  Articles,  twenty-five  in  number, 
are  set  forth  at  length  in  the  first  section  of  the  first  chapter 
of  the  Discipline.  Unfortunately  we  cannot  gather  from 
this  volume  itself  any  information  concerning  the  "estab- 
lished standards  of  doctrine,"  existing  when  this  rule  was 
framed  in  1808.  History,  therefore,  must  be  our  recourse 
for  supplying  this  defect  and  giving  a  correct  interpretation  of 
the  language.  We  may  congratulate  ourselves  that  on  so 
vital  a  head  the  materials  are  adequate  and  afford  conclu- 
sive results. 

The  first  section  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  first  part  of  the 
Discipline  of  "  The  Methodist  Church  of  Canada  "  reads  as 
follows : 

Standards  of  Doctrine. 
The  doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Church  of  Canada  are  declared  to  be 
those  contained  in  the  Twenty-five  Articles  of  Religion,  and  those  taught 
by  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  M.A.,  in  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  and 
in  the  first  fift3--two  Sermons  of  the  first  series  of  his  discourses,  published 
during  his  life-time.* 

It  were  well  if  some  such  declaration  as  this  formed  the 
first  section  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  first  part  of  the  Disci- 
pline of  every  Methodist  Church  in  the  world.  Our  Cana- 
dian brethren  enjoy  the  distinction  and  advantage  of  pref- 
acing their  Articles  of  Religion  with  this  explicit  and  per- 
spicuous statement.  This  declaration  enumerates  three 
elements  of  what  might  be  styled  the  Eciimenical  Creed  of 


♦Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Church  of  Canada,  1882,  p.  9. 

(139) 


140 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


Methodism.  From  the  beginning  to  this  date,  there  has 
been  no  doctrinal  division  in  Methodism.  As  Professor 
Burwash  has  well  pointed  out,  the  first  fifty-two  Sermons 
constitute  the  standard  of  -preaching ;  the  Notes  on  the 
New  Testament,  the  standard  of  interpretation ;  and  the 
Twenty-five  Articles,  the  standard  of  unity  v^x'Csx  the  Churches 
of  the  Reformation.* 

The  first  restrictive  rule,  limiting  the  powers  of  the  Gen-  • 
eral  Conference,  reads:  "The  General  Conference  shall 
not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  or  es- 
tabhsh  any  new  standards  or  rule  of  doctrine  contrary  to 
our  present  existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine.'''' 
What  are  the  "present  existing  and  established  standards 
of  doctrine"  here  referred  to?  The  rule  was  adopted  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1808,  and  consequently  nothing 
of  later  date  can  be  placed  among  the  "  existing  standards." 
Unquestionably  the  standards  "existing  and  established"  in 
1808  were,  besides  the  Articles,  Mr.  Wesley's  first  fifty-two 
Sermons  and  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  as  will  be 
shown  at  length  in  the  sequel.  It  was  unfortunate,  however, 
that  those  who  framed  and  passed  the  restrictive  rules  in 
1808  took  for  granted  that  posterity  would  possess  that  fa- 
miliar knowledge  of  the  standards  which  belonged  to  them- 
selves. As  a  consequence  they  did  not  formally  enumerate 
the  standards  either  in  the  restrictive  rules  or  elsewhere  in 
the  Discipline.  As  the  fathers  passed  away,  the  Church 
gradually  lost  sight  of  the  exact  works  which  constituted  the 
standards  mentioned  in  the  restrictive  rule.  The  doctrinal 
uniformity  of  American  Methodism,  and  its  freedom  from 
controversy  and  heresy,  could  receive  no  more  striking  il- 
lustration than  in  this  fact  that  the  Church  suffered  to  drop 
out  of  notice  the  standards  to  which  there  never  arose  oc- 
casion for  serious  appeal.  Even  a  man  so  cautious  and  cor- 
rect as  Bishop  McTyeire  was  at  a  loss.  In  the  earlier  edi- 
tions of  his  "Manual  of  the  Discipline,"  after  quoting  the 
first  restrictive  rule,  he  says: 

*  Wesley's  Sermons,  edited  by  Rev.  N.  Burwash,  S.T.D.,  Professor  of 
Theology  in  the  University  of  Victoria  College.    Introduction,  p.  xi. 


Doctrinal  Standards  of  Ecumenical  Methodism.  141 


Some  of  the  leading  and  characteristic  doctrines  of  Methodism  are  not 
mentioned  in  the  twenty-five  technically  called  "Articles  of  Religion;"  and 
these  "established  standards  of  doctrine"  the  Church  is  as  fully  pledged  to 
and  as  much  obliged  to  maintain  as  the  Articles.  Usage  and  general  con- 
sent indicate  these  standard  expositions  of  the  Bible  to  be  Wesley's  Ser- 
mons and  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  Watson's  Theological  Insti- 
tutes and  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Catechisms,  and  the  Hymn-book* 

But  Watson's  "Theological  Institutes"  cannot  be  re- 
ferred to  in  the  restrictive  rule,  for  that  masterly  body  of  di- 
vinity was  not  then  published  or  even  written.  The  pref- 
ace bears  date,  "London,  March  26,  1823,"  but  this  is 
really  the  date  of  the  issue  of  Part  I.,  embracing  only  the 
Evidences  of  Christianity. f  The  preparation  and  publica- 
tion of  the  entire  work  covered  a  period  of  about  seven 
years,  from  1822  to  1829.  It  was  issued  in  six  parts,  Part 
II.  appearing  early  in  1824,  Part  III.  in  the  autumn  of  1825, 
Part  IV.  in  the  autumn  of  1826,  Part  V.  in  May,  1828,  and 
Part  VI.  as  late  as  July  i,  1829.  t  Accordingly,  in  the  later 
editions  of  his  "Manual,"  we  find  Bishop  McTyeire  mak- 
ing some  corrections: 

American  Methodists  (1781)  vowed  to  "preach  the  old  Methodist  doc- 
trine" of  Wesley's  "Notes  and  Sermons."  May,  1784,  "the  doctrine 
taught  in  the  four  voiumes  of  Sermons  [the  first  fifty-two  of  our  edition] 
and  Notes  on  the  New  Testament"  was  reaffirmed.  The  Deed  of  Declara- 
tion (February,  1784)  legally  established  these  standards  in  the  parent  body. 
The  Rule  (1808)  guards  them  equally  with  the  Articles.  Usage  allows 
Watson's  Theological  Institutes  and  the  authorized  Catechisms  and  Hymn- 
book  to  be  high  expository  authority.  § 

Note  a  difference:  Institutes,  Catechisms,  and  Hymn- 
book  are  "  high  expository  authority,"  but  the  restrictive 
rule  does  not  guard  them ;  the  first  fifty-two  Sermons  of 
Mr.  Wesley  and  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament  "  the  Rule 
guards  equally  with  the  Articles,^''  and  Sermons,  Notes,  and 
Articles  are  by  a  common  boundary  fenced  within  the  same 
enclosure. 

Recurring  now  to  the  Minutes  of  the  Conference  of  1781, 

*  Manual  of  the  Discipline,  Ed.  of  1876,  p.  131. 
tjackson's  Life  of  Watson,  p.  265. 

t  Jackson's  Life  of  Watson,  pp.  278,  304,  322,  340,  and  353. 

§  Manual  of  the  Discipline,  Ed.  of  1883,  and  all  later  editions,  p.  131. 


142 


American  Methodism  to  1784.. 


we  find  the  first  question  to  be  this:  "What  preachers  are 
now  determined,  after  mature  consideration,  close  observa- 
tion, and  earnest  prayer,  to  preach  the  old  Methodist  doc- 
trine, and  strictly  enforce  the  discipHne,  as  contained  in 
the  Notes,  Sermons,  and  Minutes  published  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
so  far  as  they  respect  both  preachers  and  people,  according 
to  the  knowledge  we  have  of  them,  and  the  ability  God 
shall  give?"  The  same  standards,  we  have  seen,  are  nom- 
inated in  the  chapel  deeds  which  were  directed  to  be  drawn 
by  the  action  of  the  American  Conference  in  1780. 

In  the  Minutes  of  1784  occurs  the  following  with  regard 
to  European  preachers: 

If  they  are  recommended  by  Mr.  Wesley,  will  be  subject  to  the  Ameri- 
can Conference,  preach  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  four  volumes  of  Sermons,  and 
Notes  on  the  Neiv  Testament,  keep  the  circuits  they  are  appointed  to,  follow 
the  direction  of  the  London  and  American  Minutes,  and  be  subject  to 
Francis  Asbury  as  general  assistant,  while  he  stands  approved  by  Mr.  Wes- 
ley and  the  Conference,  we  will  receive  them,  etc. 

This  question  we  know  embodies  precisely  the  points  in- 
dicated by  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  to  the  Conference,  received 
by  Asbury  Christmas  Eve,  1783,  and  quoted  by  Jesse  Lee. 

When  the  chapel  deeds  were  reduced  to  permanent  form, 
the  Doctrinal  Standards  were  nominated  in  the  "Deed  of 
Settlement."  In  the  "  Deed  of  Settlement  "  of  each  chapel 
it  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  local  trustees,  who,  after  the 
decease  of  Mr.  Wesley,  should  "  permit  such  persons  as 
shall  be  appointed  at  the  yearly  conferences  of  the  people 
called  Methodists,  in  London,  Bristol,  Leeds,  Manchester, 
or  elsewhere,  specified  by  name  in  a  deed  enrolled  in  chan- 
cery, under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  said  John  Wesley,  and 
bearing  date  the  28th  of  February,  1784,  and  no  others,  to 
have  and  enjoy  the  said  premises  for  the  pui  poses  afore- 
said; provided,  always,  that  the  persons  preach  no  other 
doctrine  than  is  contained  in  Mr.  Wesley's  Notes  upon 
the  New  Testament  and  four  volumes  of  Sermons."  * 

*  See  in  full  the  "  Model  Deed  for  the  Settlement  of  Chapels  "  in  Smith's 
Hist,  of  Wesleyan  Meth.,  I.  736.  It  is  the  ordinary  legal  trust  deed  and 
must  be  distinguished  from  the  "  Deed  of  Declaration  "  enrolled  in  chancery 
in  1784  and  designed  to  define  and  protect  the  Deeds  of  Settlement. 


Doctrinal  Standards  of  Ecumenical  Methodism.  143 


Referring  to  the  Course  of  Study  as  contained  in  the 
current  edition  of  the  DiscipHne  (1890),  we  find  that  the 
bishops  have  made  some  significant  changes.  The  present 
generation  of  preachers  may  have  forgotten  the  works  which 
constitute  the  standards:  the  bishops  have  so  adjusted  the 
Course  of  Study  that  in  a  few  years  hence  every  deacon  in 
the  Connection  will  be  as  familiar  with  all  the  standards  as 
each  itinerant  now  is  with  the  Articles  of  Religion.  Instead 
of  assigning  one  volume  of  Wesley's  Sermons  to  each  year 
in  the  four  years'  course,  as  heretofore,  the  bishops  have 
omitted  the  third  and  fourth  volumes.  The  first  fifty-two 
sermons  of  the  edition  issued  by  our  Publishing  House  in- 
clude all  the  sermons  embraced  in  the  original  four-volume 
edition;  and  these  fifty-two  sermons  are  the  ones  nomina- 
ted as  standards  of  doctrine  in  Mr.  Wesley's  original 
"Deeds  of  Settlement"  for  his  chapels  and  referred  to 
by  the  American  Methodists  in  their  Conference  resolu- 
tions of  1780,  1781,  and  1784.  Accordingly,  Dr.  Harrison 
has  edited  the  fifty-two  sermons,  with  introductions,  analy- 
ses, and  questions,  and  they  have  been  published  in  two  vol- 
umes with  the  distinctive  title  of  "  Wesleyan  Standards.'' 

In  1788  and  1792,  and  probably  also  in  1786,  English,  as 
well  as  American,  editions  of  the  Sunday  Service  or  Prayer 
Book  were  published,  containing  the  Twenty-five  Articles  of 
Religion.  Thus,  both  before  and  after  Mr.  Wesley's  death, 
the  Articles  seem  to  have  been  accepted  in  British  Metho- 
dism.   In  the  EngHsh  editions  the  XXIIId  Article  reads : 

XXIII.  OF  THE  RULERS  OF  THE  BRITISH  DOMINIONS. 

The  King's  Majesty,  with  his  Parliament,  hath  the  chief  power  in  all  the 
British  Dominions;  unto  whom  the  chief  government  of  all  estates  in  all 
causes  doth  appertain,  and  is  not,  nor  ought  to  be,  subject  to  any  foreign 
jurisdiction. 

It  might  be  added  that  both  these  British  books  contain 
the  forms  of  ordination  for  Deacons,  Elders,  and  Superin- 
tendents, and  are  thus  of  first-rate  importance  in  determin- 
ing the  intentions  of  Mr.  Wesley  with  regard  to  both  the  doc- 


144 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


trinal  and  governmental  constitution  and  union  of  British  and 
American  Methodism.* 

If  the  English  Wesleyans,  and  all  other  bodies  of  Metho- 
dists throughout  the  world,  could  be  brought  to  adopt  the 
Episcopal  form  of  Church  government,  we  should  have  uni- 
versal Methodism  conforming  to  Mr.  Wesley's  ideal  and  plan, 
in  respect  of  both  doctrine  and  polity.  It  is  not  likely  to  be 
misunderstood  if  we  venture  to  add  that  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches  are  truer  ex- 
ponents and  examples  of  Mr.  Wesley's  views  and  intentions 
respecting  the  constitution  of  the  Church  and  the  govern- 
ment of  his  followers  than  the  non-episcopal  bodies.  How 
those  views  and  intentions  were  carried  into  execution  in 
the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Amer- 
ica will  be  narrated  in  our  next  Book. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  that  the  doctrinal  standards 
which  we  have  been  considering  are  conditions  of  admission 
to,  and  continuance  in,  the  ministry,  but  have  no  bearing  on 
private  membership  in  the  Church.  The  "  General  Rules  " 
are  the  recognized  terms  of  communion  throughout  Metho- 
dism. They  are  free  from  dogmatic  definitions  or  require- 
ments. "There  is  only  one  condition  previously  required  of 
those  who  desire  admission  into  these  societies — a  *  desire  to 
flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  to  be  saved  from  their  sins,'  " 
which,  however,  must  continue  to  be  evidenced  by  the  fruits 
described  at  length  under  the  three  divisions  of  the  General 
Rules.  The  General  Conference  has  no  power  either  to  ab- 
rogate this  one  term  of  communion  or  to  add  another  to  it. 
When  Wesley  gave  the  Articles  of  Religion  to  the  American 
Church  he  did  not  make  them  a  condition  of  membership. 
"The  'Articles  of  Religion '  and  the  '  General  Rules '  are  both 
parts  of  the  constitutional  law  of  American  Methodism;  but 
the  General  Rules  still  prescribe  the  '  only  condition  '  of 
membership,  and  mention  not  the  Articles  or  any  other  dog- 

*I  have  also  somewhere  read  that  one  of  the  recent  British  Conferences 
—1882— adopted  the  Twenty-five  Articles  as  a  standard ;  but  close  examina- 
tion of  the  Minutes  for  1881,  1882,  and  1883  has  failed  to  verify  the  statement. 


Doctrinal  Standards  of  Ecumenical  Methodism.  145 


matic  symbols."*  Private  members  maybe  tried  and  ex- 
pelled for  sowing  dissensions  in  the  Societies  and  inveighing 
against  Methodist  doctrine  and  discipline,  but  not  for  opin- 
ions or  beliefs  they  may  hold. 

Addition  to  the  Second  Edition. 

It  is  evident  that  the  preceding  chapter,  taking  for  a  basis 
the  commonly  received  standards  as  enumerated  in  the 
"Manual,"  proceeds  by  a  process  of  elimination:  those 

standards  "  are  excluded  which  could  not  have  been  in- 
tended in  1808  or  which  lack  supporting  evidence.  The  ev- 
idence for  the  remainder — Articles,  Sermons,  and  Notes — 
is  then  adduced  as  it  may  be  gathered  from  the  records  in 
1780,  1781,  and  1784.  But  doubt  is  cast  on  the  conclusions 
of  the  chapter  because  another  line  of  important  evidence 
was  overlooked.  The  evidence  adduced  ends  with  1784, 
the  epoch  of  the  organization  of  the  Church.  But,  between 
1784  and  1808,  both  in  the  series  of  annual  Disciplines  issued 
from  1785  to  1 791,  and  in  the  series  of  quadrennial  Disci- 
plines from  1 792  to  1804,  there  had  been  inserted  various  doc- 
trinal sections  and  tracts,  which,  as  constituting  part  of  the 
law-book  itself,  may  have  been  intended  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1808  when  the  language  "present  existing 
and  established  standards  of  doctrine  "  was  employed.  In 
1894,  when  the  first  edition  of  this  work  was  published,  I  did 
not  possess  a  file  of  the  Disciplines;  but  since  that  time  I 
have  collected,  or  have  personally  examined,  every  Disci- 
pline from  1784  to  1808.  The  complete  list  of  these  doctri- 
nal sections  and  tracts  is  as  follows : 

I.  "  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,  Election, 
and  Reprobation,"  which  was  inserted  in  1788,  1789, 

1790,  1791,  1792,  1797,  1801,  1804,  and  1805. 

II.  "Serious  Thoughts  on  the  Infallible,  Unconditional 
Perseverance  of  all  that  have  once  experienced  Faith 
in  Christ,"  which  was  inserted  in  1788,  1789,  1790, 

1791,  1792,  1797,  1801,  1804,  and  1805. 

*  Stevens,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  II.  448.    See  also  footnote,  p.  249. 
10 


146 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


III.  "A  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection,  as  believed 

and  taught  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Wesley,  from  the 
year  1725  to  the  year  1765,"  which  was  inserted  in 
1789,  1790,  1791,  1792,  1797,  1801,  1804,  and  1805. 

IV.  "An  Extract  on  the  Nature  and  Subjects  of  Christian 

Baptism,"  which  was  inserted  in  1790, 1791,  and  1792. 

V.  "  Of  Christian  Perfection,"  which  was  inserted  in  1792, 

i797>  1798,  1801,  1804,  and  1805. 

VI.  "Against  Antinomianism,"  which  was  inserted  in  1792, 

1797,  1798,  1801,  1804,  and  1805. 

In  1788,  when  Nos.  I.  and  II.  were  first  inserted,  the 
phrase  "With  some  other  useful  Pieces  annexed"  appears 
on  the  title-page;  in  1790,  there  is  added  in  parenthesis, 
"  now  comprehending  the  Principles  and  Doctrines,"  which 
is  continued  in  1791:  in  1792  for  the  first  time  the  title 
"  Doctrines  and  Discipline  "  and  approval  by  a  body  called 
"  the  General  Conference  "  meet  us.  Thus  the  term  "  Doc- 
trines," when  it  appeared  on  the  title-page  of  the  Discipline, 
and  afterwards,  designated  (together  with  the  Articles)  these 
doctrinal  tracts  and  sections. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  all  of  these  doctrinal  tracts,  with  the 
exception  of  the  one  on  the  *'  Nature  and  Subjects  of  Chris- 
tian Baptism,"  after  once  getting  into  the  Discipline,  re- 
mained in  all  editions  down  to  and  including  1804  and  1805, 
except  that  Nos.  I.,  II.,  and  III.,  probably  on  account  of 
their  considerable  length,  were  omitted  from  the  edition  of 
1798,  which  contained  the  "Notes"  of  Coke  and  Asbury. 
But  after  this  annotated  edition,  they  were  restored;  and 
were  thus  among  the  designated  "  Doctrines  "  on  the  title- 
page  of  the  Disciplines  of  1804  and  1805  which  the  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Conference  of  1808  had  before  them. 

Concerning  the  "Articles  of  Religion"  as  authorized 
standards  of  doctrine  there  is  no  dispute.  But  the  alter- 
native seems  to  lie  between  Mr.  Wesley's  Notes  and  Ser- 
mons, supported  by  the  English  precedents  and  the  Confer- 
ence action  of  1780,  1781,  and  1784,  and  the  above-enumer- 


Doctrinal  Standards  of  Ecumenical  Methodism .    1 47 


ated  doctrinal  sections  actually  inserted  in  the  Discipline  of 
the  Church  and  described  as  its  ''Doctrines"  on  the  title- 
page  thereof.  Probably  the  treatise  on  the  "  Nature  and 
Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism"  should  be  omitted  from  the 
doctrinal  tracts,  since  it  had  disappeared  from  the  Disci- 
pline after  1792,  Of  the  doctrinal  tracts  it  may  be  added 
that  while  they  were  published  in  the  Discipline,  they  were 
never  recognized  as  "  standards  "  in  England,  though  most- 
ly originating  there,  and  are  not  known  to  have  been  ex- 
pressly so  denominated  in  America,  unless  in  the  first  re- 
strictive rule.  If  there  is  any  express  and  decisive  evidence 
ad  rem,  enabling  us  to  choose  with  certainty  and  finality  be- 
tween these  two  views,  which  appear  to  be  the  only  definite 
ones  we  have  warrant  for  entertaining,  I  have  not  been  able 
to  find  it.  My  judgment  rather  inclines  to  the  belief  that  the 
fathers  of  1808, — if  they  did  not  actually  overlook  the  action 
of  the  yearly  Conferences  before  the  organization  of  the 
Church,  a  quarter  of  a  century  before,  or  regard  it  as  su- 
perseded by  the  action  of  the  Christmas  Conference  in 
receiving  the  Articles  of  Religion  framed  by  Mr.  Wesley, — 
probably  had  their  minds  upon  the  actual  doctrinal  contents 
of  the  Disciplines  in  their  hands,  designated  on  the  title-page 
as  the  "  Doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

The  doctrinal  sections  and  tracts  were  all  continued  in  the 
Discipline  of  1808  in  which  the  language  concerning  "our 
present  existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine  "  first 
appeared.  In  the  General  Conference  of  181 2,  it  was  or- 
dered, on  motion  of  Jesse  Lee,  "  that  the  tracts  on  doctrine  be 
left  out  of  the  future  edition  of  our  form  of  Discipline,"  and 
that  certain  tracts,  which  are  named,  "  be  printed  and  bound 
in  a  separate  volume."  *  Accordingly  the  tracts  disappear 
from  the  DiscipHne  of  1812,  and  have  never  since  been  in- 
serted, though  the  old  phrase  "Doctrines  and  Discipline" 
continues  on  the  title-page  to  this  day. 

I  have  before  me  the  volume  of  tracts  which  announces 
itself  in  an  "Advertisement,"  or  preface,  as  published  by 


General  Conference  Journals,  I.  121. 


148 


American  Methodism  to  1784. 


order  of  the  General  Conference  of  1812.  The  "Adver- 
tisement" bears  date  "July  5,  1832":  apparently  twenty  years 
elapsed  before  the  book  agents  obeyed  the  mandate  of  the 
General  Conference.  The  tracts,  which  are  thirteen  in  num- 
ber, do  not  include  all  of  the  six  mentioned  by  title  in  Jesse 
Lee's  resolution  ;  and  include  but  two  of  those  which  had  for- 
merly appeared  in  the  Discipline,  namely,  "Serious  Thoughts 
on  the  Infallible,  Unconditional  Perseverance,"  etc.,  and  Mr. 
Wesley's  "Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection."  The 
volume  itself  is  entitled  "A  Collection  of  Interesting  Tracts 
Explaining  Several  Important  Points  of  Scripture  Doctrine." 

Thus  it  appears  that  either  long  familiarity  with  the  doctri- 
nal contents  of  the  Discipline  had  made  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1812  somewhat  unmindful  of  the  special  character 
which  the  tracts  acquired  through  their  incorporation  in  the 
Discipline  itself;  or,  in  the  twenty  years  from  1812  to  1832, 
the  disciplinary  thread  which  bound  together  the  tracts  was 
lost.  I  have  not  been  able  to  discover  evidence  that  at  any 
time  since  a  definite  content  has  been  assigned  to  the  phrase 
"present  existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine." 
In  any  event,  it  seems  to  be  important  that  a  small  volume, 
with  a  suitable  introduction,  should  be  published  containing 
all  the  doctrinal  tracts  and  sections  that  have  ever  formed  a 
part  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches 
— and  nothing  else.* 

*The  language  of  the  "advertisement"  plainly  implies  that  the  book 
agents  of  1832  believed  they  were  (i)  obeying  the  mandate  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1812,  and  (2)publishing  all  the  doctrinal  tracts  which  had  pre- 
viously been  included  in  the  Discipline  ;  though  they  did  neither.  They  say  : 
"Several  of  the  following  Tracts  were  formerly  published  in  the  form  of 
Discipline;  but  as  this  undergoes  a  revision  once  in  four  years,  the  General 
Conference  of  1812  ordered  these  Tracts  to  be  left  out  of  the  Discipline; 
and,  that  they  might  still  be  within  the  reach  of  every  reader,  directed  them 
to  be  published  in  a  separate  volume.  They  have  been  accordingly  pre- 
pared and  published  in  this  form,  in  a  stereotyped  edition." 

[Since  the  preceding  was  written  I  have  arranged  and  edited  for  publica- 
tion by  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  (Cincinnati  and  New  York)  the  six 
doctrinal  tracts  and  sections  enumerated  on  pp.  145,  146.  Under  the  title  of 
"The  Doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,"  they 
make  two  volumes  of  the  well-known  series  of  "  Little  Books  on  Doctrine." 
-J-J-T.] 


BOOK  III. 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Year:  1784. 

I.  The  Deed  of  Declaration  and  Wesley's  Final 

Settlement  of  English  Methodism. 

II.  The  Christmas  Conference  and  Wesley's  Final 

Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism. 
III.  The  First  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

(149) 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  DEED   OF  DECLARATION  AND  WESLEY's  FINAL  SETTLE- 
MENT OF  ENGLISH  METHODISM. 

'T'HE  year  1784,"  says  Dr.  Whitehead,  "brings  us  to 
1  the  grand  climacterical  year  of  Methodism.  Not,  in- 
deed, if  we  number  the  years  of  its  existence  [the  63d  year 
is  esteemed  the  grand  cHmacteric  of  human  Hfe]  but  if  we 
regard  the  changes  which  now  took  place  in  the  form  of  its 
original  Constitution.  Not  that  these  changes  destroyed 
at  once  the  original  Constitution  of  Methodism:  this  would 
have  been  too  great  a  shock;  but  the  seeds  of  its  corrup- 
tion and  final  dissolution  were  this  year  solemnly  planted, 
and  have  since  been  carefully  watered  and  nursed  by  a  pow- 
erful party  among  the  preachers.  The  changes  to  which  I 
allude  were  i.  The  Deed  of  Declaration;  and  2,  Ordina- 
tion." *  The  medical  practitioner's  knowledge  enabled  the 
doctor  to  borrow  an  apposite  term,  descriptive  of  supposed 
changes  in  the  human  constitution,  and  apply  it  to  the  crit- 
ical transition  period  in  the  development  of  Methodism,  both 
at  home  and  across  the  seas;  but  subsequent  events,  com- 
pared with  this  record,  have  totally  eclipsed  his  fame  as  a 
prophet,  just  as  the  fidelity  of  other  chroniclers  has  robbed 
him  of  repute  as  the  biographer  of  Wesley  and  the  would-be 
historian  of  Methodism. t    Robert  Southey,  however,  un- 

*Life  of  Wesley,  II.  248. 

I  My  copy  of  Whitehead's  Vv'^esley  was  once  the  property  of  an  eminent 
Methodist  preacher,  now  deceased,  who,  after  reading  it  in  two  weeks,  while 
yet  a  young  man,  says  on  the  fly-leaf:  "  I  wonder  not  that  the  Methodists 
were  at  loggerheads  with  Dr.  W.  They  had  a  right  to  oppose  him,  in  set- 
ting himself  up  as  John  Wesley's  biographer  and  the  historian  of  Metho- 
dism, because,  (i)  He  was  a  bungler  as  a  writer;  with  a  wealth  of  fresh  ma- 
terial at  command  he  has  made  a  poor  book.  His  selections  from  MSS.  are 
not  always  good.  His  comments  are  flat  and  impertinent.  (2)  He  was  a 
bull-headed,  self-conceited,  prejudiced  creature — saw  not  John  Wesley's 

(151) 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


fortunately  treated  him  as  an  authority,  and  echoes  his  sen- 
timent, minus  his  dismal  prophecies,  about  the  "grand  cli- 
macterical  year,"  so  called,  "  because  Wesley  then  first  arro- 
gated to  himself  an  episcopal  power;  and  because  in  that 
year  the  legal  settlement  of  the  Conference  was  effected, 
whereby  provision  was  made  for  the  government  of  the  So- 
ciety after  his  death."  * 

Undoubtedly  it  was  the  "grand  climacteric  "  year.  Wes- 
ley was  eighty-one  years  old.  But  seven  years  of  life,  as  the 
event  proved,  remained  to  him.  Many  among  preachers 
and  members — some  of  them  plotters  and  schemers — were 
awaiting  his  end  with  pious  resignation.  His  dissolution,  it 
was  confidently  expected,  would  prove  also  the  dissolution 
of  the  Methodist  Connection,  united  by  a  personal  bond, 
which  death  should  loose.  Methodism,  spread  defenseless 
throughout  the  British  Isles,  was  a  rich  prey.  Hovering 
over  it  were  eagles — and  other  birds  hardly  worthy  the  aqui- 
line name  or  company — with  sharpened  beak  and  claw, 
ready  for  the  feast.  Chapels  and  congregations  were  ready 
to  the  hand  of  popular  favorites  who  would  soon  settle  with 
all  the  freedom  of  Independents,  rid  at  last  of  the  ceaseless 
martial  music  to  which  Wesley  had  kept  the  itinerant  ranks 
of  Methodism  moving.    'Twas  a  pleasing  prospect.    To  be 

strong  points— took  Charles  for  the  greater  man  of  the  two — objects  to  the 
great  and  leading  acts  of  his  hero's  life,  and  that  he  may  back  up  his  objec- 
tions, he  begins  early  and  loses  no  opportunity  to  discredit  Wesley's  judg- 
ment— his  knowledge  of  men — his  iirmness  in  adhering  to  his  well-advised 
purposes,  etc.  If  Dr.  Whitehead  really  was  selected  by  John  Wesley  as  a 
biographer  or  literary  executor,  it  is  the  most  conclusive  evidence  of  the 
book  against  his  judgment  and  penetration. — Much  damage  has  been  done 
Methodism  by  this  spiteful,  anti-Methodistic  book. — It  is  full  of  the  author's 
own  grudges,  and  personal  and  party  dislikes — a  cheat — an  imposition."  In 
another  place  the  same  writer  says:  "  Dr.  John  Whitehead,  the  author  of 
this  Life  of  Wesley,  which  is  rejected  by  all  Wesleyans,  and  of  this  history 
of  Methodism,  which  none  but  its  enemies  receive,  was  one  of  those 
sfoonies  that  never  tire  of  extolling  the  Establishment  and  would  have  had 
English  Methodism  play  second  fiddle  to  it  until  it  '  played  out ' — which  it 
would  soon  have  done.  Imagine  a  Life  of  George  Washington  written  by 
a  tory !    Such  is  this  '  Life.'  " 

*Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  Amer.  ed.  1858,  II.  284. 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  English  Methodism.  153 


sure  for  more  than  thirty  years  the  title-deeds  of  the  chapels 
had  bound  trustees,  preachers,  and  people  to  Wesley's  doc- 
trinal standards.  But  then  the  preachers  were  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  "  Yearly  Conference  of  the  People  called 
Methodists."  And  such  a  body  had  no  legal  existence. 
Scarcely  should  Wesley  be  laid  in  his  grave,  before  the  law- 
yers would  help  the  trustees  into  permanent  possession  and 
control  of  the  chapels,  and  the  preachers  into  pulpits,  over 
which  neither  a  Methodist  Conference  nor  an  English  Bish- 
op could  exercise  supervision.  In  America,  Asbury  had 
suppressed  the  sacramentarians,  and  the  presbyterian  organ- 
ization of  Methodism,  only  after  protracted  and  strenuous 
effort;  and  then  had  succeeded  by  joining  the  recalcitrants 
in  a  common  appeal  to  Wesley,  and  thus  holding  out  the  hope 
of  speedy  and  effectual  relief  from  that  source.  Had  Wes- 
ley died  without  episcopally  organizing  American  Methodism, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  these  trans-Atlantic  Societies  could 
have  had  a  future.  If  Asbury 's  consecrated  will  and  tact 
could  have  held  the  Americans  together  until  his  death,  the 
English  dissolution,  on  Wesley's  death,  must  then  have  re- 
peated itself  in  America.  Methodism's  contributions  to  the 
ministry  and  membership  of  Episcopal  and  Independent  bod- 
ies, in  England  and  America,  from  the  beginning  to  this  good 
day,  have  been  innumerable.  But  for  Wesley's  foresight 
and  firmness,  Methodism  would  long  ago  have  been  swal- 
lowed up.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that,  notwithstanding  its 
glorious  successes  won  under  the  personal  leadership  and  con- 
trol of  Wesley,  Methodism,  but  for  the  measures  adopted  in 
1784,  "the  grand  climacteric  year,"  when  the  seeds  of  its 
perpetual  union  and,  we  trust,  immortal  usefulness,  were 
planted,  to  be  carefully  watered  and  nursed  by  powerful 
confederacies  of  itinerant  preachers,  would  have  long  since 
disappeared  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  To-day,  Methodist 
Churches  and  Methodist  Societies,  out  of  which  the 
Churches  were  formed,  would  have  been  alike  unknown  to 
the  world. 

The  evil  showed  itself  in  prominent  overt  acts,  previous  to  this  period. 


154  '^^^  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  178^. 


Mr.  Wesley,  having  striven  to  prevail  on  some  trustees,  in  Yorkshire,*  to 
settle  their  chapels,  so  that  the  people  might  continue  to  hear  the  same 
truths  and  be  under  the  same  discipline  as  heretofore,  was  assailed  with  cal- 
umny, and  with  the  most  determined  opposition,  as  though  he  intended  to 
make  the  chapels  his  own!  Another  set  of  trustees,  in  the  same  county, ab- 
solutely refused  to  settle  a  lately  erected  chapel ;  and,  in  the  issue,  engaged 
Mr.  Wesley's  book-steward  in  London,'|"  who  had  been  an  itinerant  preach- 
er, to  come  to  them  as  their  minister.  This  man,  however,  was  "  wise  in  his 
generatio7i and  insisted  upon  having  an  income  of  sixty  pounds  fer  annum, 
with  the  chapel-house  to  live  in,  settled  upon  him  during  his  life,  before  he 
would  relinquish  his  place  under  Mr.  Wesley.  What  will  not  party  spirit 
do!  I  was  a  witness,  when,  after  Mr.  Wesley's  death,  it  was  found,  that  the 
preachers  continued  united  and  faithful  in  their  calling,  how  deeply  those 
men  repented  of  their  conduct  in  this  instance.  In  vain  they  represented  to 
the  man  of  their  unhappy  choice,  how  lamentably  their  congregations  had 
declined,  and  how  hardly  they  could  sustain  the  expenses  they  had  incurred. 
The  answer  was  short:  they  might  employ  other  preachers,  if  they  should 
think  it  proper;  but  the  dwelling-house  and  the  stated  income  belonged  to 
him!  ...  In  that  day  of  uncertainty  and  surmise,  there  were  not 
wanting  some,  even  among  the  itinerant  preachers,  who  entertained  fears 
respecting  a  settlement  of  this  kind.  They  had  but  little  hope  that  the 
work  would  continue,  after  Mr.  Wesley's  death,  as  it  had  during  his  life; 
and  thev  thought  it  probable,  that  the  largest  Societies  and,  of  course,  the 
principal  chapels  Mould  become  independent.  .  .  .  Some  of  the  itiner- 
ant preachers  brought  the  charge,  at  the  first  Conference  after  the  Deed 
was  enrolled,  that  it  was  the  work  of  Dr.  Coke,  who  had  joined  Mr.  Wesley 
a  few  years  before.  Mr.  Wesley  only  replied  to  this  in  the  words  of  Virgil, 
Non  vult,  non  fotuil!  "He  had  neither  the  will  nor  the  power." 

The  truth  is:  the  Conference  had  requested  Mr.  Wesley  to  get  such  an 
instrument  drawn  up,  as  would  define  or  explain  what  was  meant  by  that 
expression,  used  in  the  various  deeds  of  the  chapels  so  settled;  viz.,  "The 
Conference  of  the  People  called  Methodists;"  upon  the  meaning  of 
which  terms  the  authority  so  appointing  must  rest,  so  long  as  there  should 
be  an  itinerant  ministry.  The  elder  Mr.  Hampson  was  particularly  earnest 
with  Mr.  Wesley,  to  have  such  an  instrument  executed  without  delay.  He 
immediately  set  about  it;  and  having  given  directions  to  his  solicitor,  who 
took  the  opinion  of  counsel  upon  the  most  proper  and  effectual  way  of  doing 
it,  he  committed  it  chiefly  to  the  care  of  Dr.  Coke,  as  his  own  avocations 
would  not  admit  of  a  constant  personal  attendance.  He,  however,  wrote, 
with  his  own  hand,  a  list  of  a  hundred  names,  which  he  ordered  to  be  in- 
serted, declaring  his  full  determination  that  no  more  should  be  appointed; 
and  as  there  never  had  been  so  great  a  number  at  any  Conference,  and  gen- 
erally from  twenty  to  thirty  less,  the  number  so  fixed  would  not,  it  was 

*See  the  case  of  Birstal  House,  pp.  38-42,  of  this  work. 

t  Mr.  John  Atlay,  nine  years  an  itinerant  preacher,  and  fifteen  years  book-steward  in  Lon- 
don: see  four  letters  to  him  from  Mr.  Wesley,  Works,  VII.  331,  and  the  "Case  of  Dewsbury 
House,"  which  is  the  chapel  referred  to  in  the  text,  VII.  329,  330.  Cf.  "A  Word  to  Whom  it 
May  Concern,"  VII.  332. 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  English  Methodism.  155 

thought,  have  excited  either  surprise  or  displeasure.  I  can  state  with  the 
fullest  certainty,  that  what  Dr.  Whitehead  has  asserted,  respecting  Mr.  Wes- 
ley having  repented  of  this  transaction,  is  totally  unfounded.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  reviewed  it  always  with  high  satisfaction;  and  praised  God,  who 
had  brought  him  through  a  business  which  he  had  long  contemplated  with 
earnest  desire,  and  yet  with  many  fears.* 

The  full  title  of  that  famous  and  important  document,  the 
"  Deed  of  Declaration,"  the  Magna  Chartaof  British  Meth- 
odism, is  "  The  Rev.  John  Wesley's  Declaration  and  Estab- 
lishment of  the  Conference  of  the  People  called  Metho- 
dists." t  According  to  the  Deed  itself  its  object  was  "  to 
explain  the  words  '  Yearly  Conference  of  the  People  called 
Methodists,'  contained  in  all  the  said  trust  deeds,  and  to  de- 
clare what  persons  are  members  of  the  said  Conference,  and 
how  the  succession  and  identity  thereof  is  to  be  continued." 
The  preamble  recites  the  origin,  composition,  and  functions 
of  Wesley's  Conference,  and  the  nature,  object,  and  condi- 
tions of  the  trust  deeds  by  which  the  chapels  and  other 
property  were  held  for  the  use  of  the  Methodist  preachers, 
with  all  of  which  we  have  previously  become  familiar. 
The  Deed  then  enumerates  the  names  of  one  hundred 
preachers,  with  their  addresses,  and  declares  that  they 
"being  preachers  and  expounders  of  God's  Holy  Word, 
under  the  care  and  in  connection  with  the  said  John  Wes- 
ley, have  been,  now  are,  and  do,  on  the  day  of  the  date 
thereof  [Feb.  28,  1784]  constitute  the  members  of  the  said 
Conference,  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the 
said  several  gifts  and  conveyances  wherein  the  words, 
'  Conference  of  the  people  called  Methodists,'  are  mentioned 
and  contained;  and  that  the  said  several  persons  before 
named,  and  their  successors  forever,  to  be  chosen  as  here- 
after mentioned,  are  and  shall  forever  be  construed,  taken, 
and  be  the  Conference  of  the  people  called  Methodists." 
All  this  hinged  upon  prescribed  conditions  and  regulations 
which  may  be  briefly  summarized  as  follows:  (i)  That 
they  and  their  successors,  for  the  time  being  forever,  shall 
assemble  once  a  year;  (2)  That  the  act  of  the  majority 

*  Moore's  Life  of  Wesley,  II.  295-300.    1  Whitehead,  Life,  II.  248 


156  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784.. 

shall  be  the  act  of  the  whole;  (3)  That  their  first  business, 
when  they  assemble,  shall  be  to  fill  up  vacancies;  (4)  That 
no  act  of  the  Conference  shall  be  valid  unless  forty  of  its 
members  are  present;  (5)  That  the  duration  of  the  yearly 
Conference  shall  not  be  less  than  five  days,  nor  more  than 
three  weeks;  (6)  That,  immediately  after  fiUing  up  vacan- 
cies, they  shall  choose  a  President  and  Secretary  from  them- 
selves; (7)  That  any  member  of  the  Conference,  absenting 
himself  from  the  yearly  assembly  for  two  years  successive- 
ly, without  the  consent  of  the  Conference,  and  who  is  not 
present  on  the  first  day  of  the  third  yearly  assembly,  shall 
forthwith  cease  to  be  a  member,  as  though  he  were  dead; 
(8)  That  the  Conference  may  expel  any  member,  or  any 
person  admitted  into  connection,  for  any  cause  which  to  the 
Conference  may  seem  fit  or  necessary;  (9)  That  they  may 
admit  into  connection  any  person,  of  whom  they  approve,  to 
be  a  preacher  of  God's  holy  word,  under  direction  of  the 
Conference;  (10)  That  no  person  shall  be  elected  a  member 
of  the  Conference,  who  has  not  been  admitted  into  the  con- 
nection, as  a  preacher,  for  twelve  months;  (11)  That  the 
Conference  shall  not  appoint  any  person  to  the  use  of  chap- 
els, who  is  not  either  a  member  of  the  Conference,  or  admit- 
ted into  connection  with  the  same,  or  upon  trial;  and  that  no 
person  shall  be  appointed  for  more  than  three  years  success 
sively,  except  ordained  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England; 
(12)  That  the  Conference  may  appoint  the  place  of  holding 
the  yearly  assembly  at  any  other  town  than  London,  Bristol, 
or  Leeds;  (13)  That  the  Conference  may,  when  it  shall 
seem  expedient,  send  any  of  its  members  as  delegates  to 
Ireland,  or  other  parts  out  of  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain, 
to  act  on  its  behalf,  and  with  all  the  powers  of  the  Confer- 
ence itself;  (14)  That  all  resolutions  and  acts  of  the  Confer- 
ence shall  be  written  in  the  journals  and  be  signed  by  the  Pres- 
ident and  Secretary  for  the  time  being;  (15)  That  whenever 
the  Conference  shall  be  reduced  under  the  number  of  forty 
members,  and  continue  so  reduced  for  three  years  succes- 
sively; or  whenever  the  members  shall  decUne  or  neglect  to 


Wesley's  Final  Settle^nent  of  English  Methodism.  157 


meet  together  annually  during  the  space  of  three  years,  the 
Conference  of  the  people  called  Methodists  shall  be  extin- 
guished, and  all  its  powers,  privileges,  and  advantages  shall 
cease;  (16)  That  nothing  in  this  deed  shall  extinguish  or  less- 
en the  life  estate  of  John  and  Charles  Wesley  in  any  of  the 
chapels  in  which  they  now  have,  or  may  have,  any  estate  or 
interest,  power  or  authority.* 

At  the  Conference  of  1783,  the  year  before  the  enrollment 
of  the  Deed,  one  hundred  and  ninety-two  preachers  had 
been  given  appointments.  Twenty-two  of  these  had  not  yet 
been  admitted  into  full  connection.  Tyerman  thinks  it 
would  have  been  prudent  to  have  named  the  whole  of  the 
remaining  one  hundred  and  seventy  in  the  Deed.  Wesley's 
reasons  seem  to  have  been  conclusive  against  this.  Sixteen, 
however,  were  selected  who  had  traveled  less  than  four 
years,  whereas  the  following  were  among  the  rejected: 
Thomas  Lee,  who  had  traveled  36  years;  John  Atlay,  21; 
James  Thompson,  25;  John  Poole,  25;  WilHam  Ashman, 
19;  J.  Hern,  15;  William  Eels,  12;  Thomas  Mitchell,  36; 
and  Joseph  Pilmoor,  19. 

Why  a  man  who  afterward  developed  such  traits  as  Atlay, 
the  renegade  book-steward,  and  one  like  our  old  friend. 
Brother  Pilmoor,  formerly  of  the  American  circuit — after- 
wards the  Rev.  Dr.  Pilmoor,  an  estimable  Protestant  Epis- 
copal clergyman  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia — should  have 
been  omitted,  we  can  readily  understand.  Perhaps  if  we 
were  intimately  acquainted  with  the  characters  and  careers 
of  the  remainder  of  this  corps  of  ancient  worthies  we 
could  better  appreciate  the  sweet  reasonableness  of  the 
course  which  Wesley,  who  knew  them  well,  pursued  toward 
them. 

When  the  delegated  General  Conference  was  determined 

*  This  summary  substantially  reproduces  Tyerman's  Life  and  Times  of 
Wesley,  III.  418,  419.  Other  summaries  maybe  found  in  Whitehead's  Life, 
n.  248-253;  Southe^v's  Life,  IL  284-286.  The  Deed  is  printed  in  full  in 
Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  ed.,  IV.  753-759;  in  Smith's  Hist,  of  Wesleyan 
Meth.,  Appen.  E.,  I.  731-735;  and  in  Neely's  Governing  Conference  in 
Methodism,  pp.  60-69. 


158  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


on  in  America  a  keen  and  protracted  debate  turned  on 
whether  the  delegates  should  be  appointed  by  election  or  by 
seniority  and,  at  last,  the  dispute  was  settled  by  leaving  that 
alternative  with  the  Annual  Conferences:  as  a  matter  of 
fact  no  Conference  ever  appointed  its  representatives  by 
seniority. 

Immediately,  John  Hampson,  Sr.,  sent  forth  a  printed  cir- 
cular, entitled,  "An  Appeal  to  the  Reverend  John  and 
Charles  Wesley ;  to  all  the  preachers  who  act  in  connection 
with  them,  and  to  every  member  of  their  respective  societies 
in  England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  and  America."  "  In  this 
document,"  says  George  Smith,  "the  curious  may  find  all 
the  allegations  put  forth  in  every  agitation  of  Methodism 
from  that  time  to  the  present.  Here  is  an  alleged  great 
breach  of  faith,  an  asserted  act  of  injustice  and  tyranny, 
which  is  said  to  have  been  committed  under  the  influence  of 
a  favored  few;  and  the  complainants  are  represented  as 
persecuted  and  injui-ed."  * 

The  Deed  of  Declaration  [continues  Dr.  Smith]  was  violently  opposed  in 
Wesley's  time  by  those  preachers  who  regarded  themselves  as  equal,  in  re- 
spect of  standing  and  abilit}',  to  any  of  their  brethren  ;  but  whose  names  were 
not  inserted  by  Wesley  in  the  Deed.  The  mention  of  this  class  is  a  sufficient 
explanation  of  their  objection. 

Besides  these,  there  were  others,  itinerant  and  local  preachers,  who  had  be- 
come united  to  Methodist  Societies,  but  who  never  calculated  on  the  perma- 
nence of  the  body,  or  its  continued  and  energetic  action  as  a  whole,  after 
the  death  of  Wesley.  Some  of  these,  it  is  believed,  unfaithful  to  their  prin- 
ciples and  calling,  looked  forward  to  the  death  of  their  founder  as  a  time 
when,  by  the  favor  of  friendly  trustees,  they  might  secure  the  pulpits  of  re- 
spectable chapels,  and  escape  from  the  toil,  privations,  and  dangers  of 
itinerancy. 

There  were,  also,  men  who  believed  that  Methodism  was,  in  its  origin, 
a  very  good  and  useful  means  of  rousing  a  slumbering  Church  and  nation 
to  a  sense  of  God  and  religion;  but  that,  having  brought  out  the  sterling 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation  from  neglect  and  obscurity,  and  imbued  the 
clergy  and  the  people  to  some  extent  with  a  conviction  of  their  spiritual 
vitality  and  practical  importance,  as  well  as  having  afforded,  in  thousands 
of  instances,  proofs  of  the  experimental  and  practical  godliness  which 
they  could  impart  in  life  and  in  death,  it  ought  to  have  retired  from  the 
scene,  and  never  to  have  formed  a  permanent  body,  but  to  have  left  these 
lessons  of  holy  faith  and  practice  for  the  edification  of  the  Church  whence 


*  Hist,  of  Wesleyan  Meth.,  London  ed.,  I.  523,  524. 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  English  Methodism.  159 


the  founder  of  Methodism  had  been  raised.  Had  this  been  done,  Wesley 
would  have  been  lauded  as  an  apostle  by  Dr.  Southey  and  many  others,  who 
liave  spoken  of  him  in  a  very  different  tone.  The  Deed  of  Declaration 
alone  prevented  such  a  dislocation  of  the  Societies  on  the  death  of  Wesley. 

For  this  reason,  those  persons  who  deplore  the  continued  existence  of 
Methodism  as  a  great  and  lamentable  ecclesiastical  irregularity ;  who  be- 
lieve, that  on  the  demise  of  Wesley,  if  not  before,  the  Societies  which  he 
had  gathered  should  have  fallen  back  into  the  bosom  of  the  National 
Church;  naturally  look  on  the  Deed  of  Declaration  as  the  master  evil  of  the 
whole  system.* 

As  early  as  April,  1785,  Mr.  Wesley  placed  in  the  hands 
of  Joseph  Bradford  a  letter  to  be  delivered  to  the  Confer- 
ence at  the  first  session  after  his  death  ; 

Chester,  April  7,  1785. 

My  Dear  Brethren:  Some  of  our  traveling  preachers  have  e.xpressed  a 
fear,  that,  after  my  decease,  you  would  exclude  them  either  from  preaching 
in  connection  with  you,  or  from  some  other  privileges  which  they  now  en- 
joy. I  know  no  other  way  to  prevent  such  inconvenience,  than  to  leave 
these  my  last  words  with  you. 

I  beseech  you,  by  the  mercies  of  God,  that  you  never  avail  yourselves  of 
the  deed  of  declaration  to  assume  any  superiority  over  your  brethren;  but 
let  all  things  go  on,  among  those  itinerants  who  choose  to  remain  together, 
exactly  in  the  same  manner  as  when  I  was  with  you,  so  far  as  circumstances 
will  permit. 

In  particular,  I  beseech  you,  if  you  ever  loved  me,  and  if  you  now  love 
God  and  your  brethren,  to  have  no  respect  of  persons  in  stationing  the 
preachers,  in  choosing  children  for  Kingswood  school,  in  disposing  of  the 
yearly  contribution,  and  the  preachers'  fund,  or  any  other  public  money: 
but  do  all  things  with  a  single  eye,  as  I  have  done  from  the  beginning. 
Go  on  thus,  doing  all  things  without  prejudice  or  partiality,  and  God  will 
be  with  you  even  to  the  end.  John  Wesley.^ 

At  the  Conference  of  1791,  the  first  after  Mr.  Wesley's 
death,  this  letter  was  read,  when  it  was  unanimously  re- 
solved : 

That  all  the  preachers  who  are  in  full  connection  with  them  shall  enjoy 
every  privilege  that  the  members  of  the  Conference  enjoy,  agreeably  to  the 
above  written  letter  of  our  venerable  deceased  father  in  the  gospel.  | 

We  conclude  our  account  of  the  Deed  of  Declaration  and 
take  our  leave,  in  this  history,  of  English  Methodism,  estab- 
lished to  this  day  upon  the  legal  rock  which  Mr.  Wesley,  as- 


*Hist.  of  Wesleyan  Meth.,  London  ed.,  I.  526,  527. 
^Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  ed.,  VII.  310,  311. 
Xlbid.,  VII.  311,  footnote. 


i6o 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


sisted  by  Dr.  Coke,  quarried  for  its  sufficient  foundation, 
with  the  great  Founder's  own  final  defense  of  his  action, 
under  date  of  March  3,  1785: 

In  naming  these  preachers,  as  I  had  no  adviser,  so  I  had  no  respect  of 
persons;  but  I  simply  set  down  those  that,  according  to  the  best  of  my 
judgment,  were  most  proper.  But  I  am  not  infallible.  I  might  mistake, 
and  think  better  of  some  of  them  than  they  deserved.  However,  I  did  my 
best;  and  if  I  did  wrong  it  was  not  the  error  of  my  will,  but  of  my  judg- 
ment. 

This  was  the  rise  and  this  is  the  nature  of  that  famous  "  Deed  of  Decla- 
ration " — that  vile,  wicked  deed! — concerning  which  you  have  heard  such 
an  outcry.  And  now,  can  any  one  tell  me  how  to  mend  it,  or  how  it  could 
have  been  made  better.?  "  O  yes,  you  might  have  inserted  two  hundred,  as 
well  as  one  hundred  preachers."  No,  for  then  the  expense  of  meeting 
would  have  been  double,  and  all  the  circuits  would  have  been  without 
preachers.  "  But  you  might  have  named  other  preachers  instead  of  these." 
True,  if  I  had  thought  as  well  of  them  as  they  did  of  themselves.  But  I  did 
not;  therefore  I  could  do  no  otherwise  than  I  did,  without  sinning  against 
God  and  my  own  conscience. 

"  But  what  need  was  there  for  any  deed  at  all.?"  There  was  the  utmost 
need  of  it.  Without  some  authentic  deed  fixing  the  meaning  of  the  term, 
the  moment  I  died  the  Conference  had  been  nothing.  Therefore  any  of 
the  proprietors  of  the  land  on  which  our  preaching-houses  were  built  might 
have  seized  them  for  their  own  use,  and  there  would  have  been  none  to  hin- 
der them;  for  the  Conference  would  have  been  nobody — a  mere  empty 
name. 

You  see,  then,  in  all  the  pains  I  have  taken  about  this  absolutely  neces- 
sary deed  I  have  been  laboring,  not  for  myself  (I  have  no  interest  therein), 
but  for  the  whole  body  of  Methodists,  in  order  to  fix  them  upon  such  a 
foundation  as  is  likely  to  stand  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  endure.  That 
is,  if  they  continue  to  walk  by  faith,  and  to  show  forth  their  faith  by  their 
works;  otherwise  I  pray  God  to  root  out  the  memorial  of  them  from  the 
earth.* 


♦"Thoughts  upon  Some  Late  Occurrences,"  Wesley's  Works,  VII.  309,  310. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE    CHRISTMAS    CONFERENCE    AND    WESLEY's    FINAL  SET- 
TLEMENT OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 

AS  late  as  1805,  Asbury,  the  Apostle  of  America,  soberly 
summing  up  the  elements  of  his  Churchly  status,  and 
evincing  a  decent  respect  for  the  opinions  of  the  thoughtful 
and  virtuous  portion  of  mankind,  said:  "I  will  tell  the 
world  what  I  rest  my  authority  upon.  i.  Divine  authority. 
2.  Seniority  in  America.  3.  The  election  of  the  General 
Conference.  4.  My  ordination  by  Thomas  Coke,  William 
Philip  Otterbein,  German  Presbyterian  minister,  Richard 
Whatcoat,  and  Thomas  Vasey.  5.  Because  the  signs  of  an 
apostle  have  been  seen  in  me."  * 

This  is  a  sensible  and  solid  statement  by  which  the 
staunch  old  Bishop  sought  to  satisfy  himself  no  less  than 
the  world.  In  an  eminent  sense  he  was  the  first  Bishop  of 
American  Methodism,  though  ordained  a  Superintendent  by 
Coke,  the  "Foreign  Minister  of  Methodism,"  who  had 
been  himself  solemnly  set  apart  to  the  same  office  by  the 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  Wesley  himself.  This  is  the  sta- 
ple, then,  whence  the  chain  of  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  pend- 
ent.   Is  it  sufficient  to  bear  the  weight? 

We  are  now  introduced  to  the  transaction,  which,  esti- 
mated according  to  any  standard,  must  be  pronounced  the 
weightiest  in  Wesley's  long  and  eventful  career.  He  delib- 
erately assumed  and  exercised  the  power  of  ordination,  con- 
trary to  the  canons  of  the  Church  of  England,  of  which  he 
was  a  member  and  a  minister.  More:  he  bestowed  a  third 
ordination  upon  a  co-equal  presb}i:er  of  the  English  Church, 
provided  him  with  proper  credentials,  and  sent  him  to  Amer- 
ica empowered  and  directed  to  ordain  others.    As  in  the 


*  Journal,  III.  i68,  May  22,  1805. 
11  (161) 


l62 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  ijS/}.. 


sixteenth  century  Luther  created  a  new  Church  for  regen- 
erated Germany,  so,  in  a  scarcely  subordinate  sense,  Wes- 
ley, in  the  closing  years  of  the  eighteenth,  constituted  a 
Church  providentially  adapted  to  the  conditions  and  needs 
of  newly-liberated  and  sparsely-settled  America. 

From  the  beginning  to  this  good  hour,  Wesley's  conduct 
at  this  juncture  has  been  fiercely  assailed  and  bitterly  mis- 
represented— sometimes  ignorantly,  sometimes  designedly. 
He  lost  many  old  friends  and  made  many  new  enemies, 
when  the  time  was  short  for  appeasing  the  latter  or  regain- 
ing the  former.  "I  can  scarcely  yet  believe  it,"  wrote 
Charles,  "  that,  in  his  eighty-second  year,  my  brother,  my 
old,  intimate  friend  and  companion,  should  have  assumed 
the  episcopal  character,  ordained  elders,  consecrated  a 
bishop,  and  sent  him  to  ordain  our  lay  preachers  in  Amer- 
ica! "*  In  doggerel  and  ditty  from  the  pen  of  his  good 
brother  t  and  from  that  of  meaner  poets,  the  venerable 
Founder  of  the  people  called  Methodists  was  mercilessly 
lampooned.  It  was  a  somewhat  more  refined,  but  scarcely 
less  cruel,  weapon  than  those  employed  by  the  mobs  of 
earlier  days.  Pitifully  but  firmly  the  old  man  pleads  with 
his  brother,  "  I  walk  still  by  the  same  rule  I  have  done  for 
between  forty  and  fifty  years.  I  do  nothing  rashly.  It  is 
not  likely  I  should.  The  heyday  of  my  blood  is  over.  If 
you  will  go  on  hand  in  hand  with  me,  do.  But  do  not  hin- 
der me,  if  you  will  not  help.  Perhaps  if  you  had  kept  close 
to  me,  I  might  have  done  better.  However,  with  or  without 
help,  I  creep  on."  %  Churchmen  have  endeavored  to  over- 
lay the  simple  dignity  and  apostoHc  grandeur  of  Wesley's 
act  with  forced  interpretations  of  its  significance,  far-fetched 

♦Letter  to  Dr.  Chandler,  April  28,  1785. 

f        I  Since  bishops  are  so  easy  made 
By  man  or  woman's  whim, 
Wesley  his  hands  on  Coke  has  laid, 

But  who  laid  hands  on  him —an  epigram  which 
enlivens  the  pages  of  many  Churchmen's  tracts,  otherwise  a  little  prosy, 
and  occasionally  strays  into  ponderous  tomes. 
X  Letter  to  Charles,  Aug.  19,  1785. 


Wesley 's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  163 


and  grotesquely  inadequate,  impertinently  assuming  to  de- 
clare for  Wesley  "  that  he  did  not  design  to  confer  upon 
Coke  the  character  of  a  Bishop;  that  Coke's  new  office  was 
designed  to  be  a  species  of  supervisory  appointment,  vague 
and  contingent — something  widely  different  from  episcopa- 
cy, however  difficult  to  define ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  dis- 
tinct existence  of  American  Methodism,  as  an  Episcopal 
Church,  is  a  fact  contrary  to  the  intentions  of  Wesley." 
Nor  have  satire  and  invective  been  left  to  the  use  of  ex- 
ternal foes  alone.  By  those  who  in  England  claimed  the 
Wesleyan  name  and  in  America  that  of  Methodist,  in  earlier 
and  later  narratives,  which  aspire  to  the  character  of  sober 
history  or  truthful  biography,  the  grand  old  man  of  Metho- 
dism has  been  stigmatized  as  inconsistently  surrendering 
lifelong  principles  in  a  moment  of  sentimental  enthusiasm. 
Or,  if  his  consistency  and  character  are  saved,  it  is  at  the 
expense  of  his  discretion  and  sense,  since,  in  the  house  of 
his  friends,  are  to  be  found  those  who  play  into  the  hands 
of  the  prelatists  and  dehberately  declare  that  his  solemn  or- 
dination of  Coke  meant  little  or  nothing,  and  that  he  never 
anticipated  any  important  consequences  in  the  organization 
of  the  American  Methodists.  But,  fortunately,  the  ancient 
performances  of  this  general  type  sufficiently  reveal  their  or- 
igin in  pique  and  disappointment,  and  the  modern  imitations 
usually  betray  their  design  to  establish  or  to  defend  some 
newly-devised  theory  of  Methodism  and  its  government, 
which  would  fain  root  itself  in  the  past,  even  if  false  to  the 
fathers  and  the  facts.*  Poor  old  Dr.  Whitehead,  buried 
though  he  is  in  the  selfsame  grave  with  Wesley,  must  be  al- 
lowed his  fling.  "  Thus  we  see,"  he  declares  in  regard  to 
Coke's  ordination,  "  that  Mr.  Wesley's  principle  and  prac- 
tice in  this  affair  directly  oppose  each  other,"  etc.,  etc.f 

*"  Some  read  in  all  this  only  the  pride  and  ambition  of  Coke  and  Asbury. 
The  reading  is  false  to  the  writing  of  the  fathers.  For  myself,  I  shall  never 
assail  the  Methodist  Episcopacy  through  such  an  impeachment  of  these 
faithful  servants  of  God  and  Methodism." — Dr.  John  Miley,  Proceedings  of 
Centennial  Conference,  1884,  p.  116. 

t  Life  of  Wesley,  II.  260. 


164  The  Grand  Climacteric  Year:  1784. 


Even  Tyerman  blots  his  fair  pages  by  transferring  to  them 
an  anonymous  screed  which  this  venomous  physician  safely 
attributes  to  "  one  of  the  preachers."  "Who  is  the  father  of 
this  monster  [ordination!],"  asks  this  unknown  itinerant, 
"so  long  dreaded  by  the  father  of  his  people,  and  by  most 
of  his  sons?  Whoever  he  be,  time  will  prove  him  to  be  a 
felon  to  Methodism,  and  discover  his  assassinating  knife 
sticking  fast  in  the  vitals  of  its  body.  Years  to  come  will 
speak  in  groans  the  opprobrious  anniversary  of  our  religious 
madness  for  gowns  and  bands."*  The  one  hundredth 
"opprobrious  anniversary"  of  this  monstrous  ordination, 
was  fittingly  celebrated  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  by  the  Bish- 
ops and  representatives  of  about  four  millions  of  American 
Episcopal  Methodists !  So  does  history  revenge  itself  upon 
those  who  venture  too  boldly  upon  the  role  of  prophecy. 

According  to  the  critics  who  occupy  such  standpoints  as 
we  have  been  cursorily  reviewing,  before  entering  upon  a 
detailed  examination  of  the  events  involved,  the  driveUng 
weakness  of  a  semi-imbecile  octogenarian  gave  unpremedi- 
tated and  instantaneous  birth  to  a  scheme  of  ecclesiastical 
government,  so  solid,  so  symmetrical — in  a  word,  so  suffi- 
cient— that,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than  a  century,  when 
the  Churches,  whose  polity  is  essentially  but  a  continuation 
or  reproduction  of  this  model,  number  their  communicants 
by  the  millions,  this  form  of  Church  government  shows  no 
sign  of  fracture  or  strain  but,  on  the  contrary,  evinces  an 
expansive  adaptability  to  indefinitely  increasing  demands, 
inferior  to  no  similar  solution  of  the  confessedly  complex 
problem  of  civil  or  ecclesiastical  government  wrought  out 
by  the  genius  of  men.  The  younger  Pitt,  chancellor  of  the 
exchequer  before  he  had  completed  his  twenty-third  year, 
need  not,  in  his  palmiest  days,  have  been  ashamed  of  the 
paternity  of  a  plan  of  administration  so  simple,  original, 
comprehensive,  and,  as  the  event  proved,  signally  and  per- 
manently adequate  and  successful.  It  is  not  claimed,  accord- 
ing to  the  example  of  others,  that  the  pattern  was  shown  to 
*  Tyerman,  III.  439;  Whitehead,  II.  257. 


Wesley 's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  165 

Wesley  in  the  mount ;  but  if  wisdom  has  ever  been  unmistak- 
ably justified  of  her  children,  the  deeds  of  this  marvelous  oc- 
togenarian may  lay  claim  to  that  high  providential  distinction. 

If  criticism  fails  to  establish  the  doting  idiocy  and  irre- 
sponsible second  childhood  of  the  man  vi^ho  abridged  the 
Articles  and  Liturgy  of  the  EngUsh  Church  for  the  use  of 
his  American  children,  and  penned  Coke's  letters  of  epis- 
copal orders  and  the  address  to  "  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury, 
and  our  brethren  in  North  America,"  it  may  at  least  essay 
the  easier  task  of  aspersing  the  characters  and  motives  of 
the  advisers  by  whom  he  was  surrounded.  A  man  who  for 
fifty  years  had  proved  singularly  firm  and  immovable  in  his 
convictions  and  decisions  might,  in  age  and  feebleness  ex- 
treme, become  a  tool  in  the  hands  of  ambitious  and  design- 
ing men,  who  should  at  once  thwart  his  judgment  and  be- 
tray his  confidence.  That  Coke,  whom  Asbury,  who  knew 
him  well,  pronounced  "  the  greatest  man  of  the  last  centu- 
ry," and  whose  shining  track  of  world-wide  evangelism  is 
like  the  flight  of  the  apocalyptic  angel,  had  characteristic 
weaknesses  and  was  guilty  of  many  indiscretions,  we  have 
no  interest  in  denying.  His  peculiarities  of  character  laid 
him  open  to  many  insinuations  and  imputations,  but  his  vin- 
dication in  this  crisis  is  complete  and  convincing,  as  we 
shall  see,  in  some  detail,  hereafter.  "  But  do  you  not  al- 
low," writes  Charles  to  his  brother,  "that  the  Doctor  has 
separated?  Do  you  not  know  and  approve  of  his  avowed 
design  and  resolution  to  get  all  the  Methodists  of  the  three 
kingdoms  into  a  distinct,  compact  body?  Have  you  seen 
his  ordination  sermon?  Is  the  heyday  of  his  blood  over? 
Does  he  do  nothing  rashly?  Have  you  not  made  yourself 
the  author  of  all  his  actions?  I  need  not  remind  you,  qtu 
facit  -per  alium  facit  per  se.  I  must  not  leave  unanswered 
your  surprising  question,  'What  then  are  you  frighted  at?' 
At  the  Doctor's  rashness,  and  your  supporting  him  in  his 
ambitious  pursuits,"  etc.*  To  which  John  calmly  replied, 
after  the  official  record  of  the  Doctor's  acts  in  America  had 


♦Letter,  Sept.  8,  1785. 


1 66  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear :  JjS^. 


been  laid  before  him,  "  I  believe  Dr.  Coke  is  as  free  from 
ambition  as  from  covetousness.  [He  gave  more  money  to 
religion  than  any  other  Methodist,  if  not  any  other  Protest- 
ant, of  his  day.]  He  has  done  nothing  rashly  that  I 
know."*  Fletcher  was  present  at  the  Leeds  Conference 
of  1784,  and  with  his  sagacious  counsels  the  American  poli- 
cy was  determined  upon.  Coke's  reluctance  when  Wes- 
ley's plan  was  first  broached  to  him  will  become  e\adent  in 
the  sequel. 

If  all  other  sources  of  impeachment  fail,  it  still  remains 
possible,  as  we  have  noticed,  to  deny  that  Mr.  Wesley's  acts 
at  this  crisis  possessed  any  special  significance  or  were  in- 
tended by  him  to  produce  the  results  which  have  actually 
proceeded  frorn  them.f  The  venerable  man  was  partly  a 
dupe  and  partly  the  hero  of  a  chapter  of  accidents.  The 
imagination  of  posterity,  or  the  vanity  of  Methodists,  has 
done  the  rest — has  endowed  him  with  statesmanlike  presci- 
ence and  has  attributed  to  wise  design  what  was  the  unfore- 
seen but  happy  result  of  blind  chance. 

It  lies  beyond  the  scope  of  our  history  to  enter  into  any 
formal  refutation  of  these  several  theories  of  how  Mr.  Wes- 
ley came  to  ordain  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England  to 
the  office  of  a  Methodist  Superintendent  and  to  provide  for 
the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States.  The  literature  is  voluminous  and  as  curious 
as  voluminous.  Its  production  has  not  yet  ceased.  Happi- 
ly a  plain  narrative  which  shall  embody  all  the  material  facts 
in  their  proper  sequence  and  relations  is  likely  to  lead  to  but 
one  conclusion  in  candid  minds,  thus  leaving  to  the  office  of 
historical  construction  and  interpretation  the  simple  task  of 
bringing  the  multitudinous  rays  which  flash  from  many  and 
unexpected  quarters  to  a  final  focus.  To  this  narrative, 
from  which  the  reader  has  perhaps  been  too  long  detained, 
we  now  proceed. 

*  Letter,  Sept.  13. 

■f-"  Wesley  meant  the  ceremony  to  be  a  mere  formality  likely  to  recom- 
mend his  delegate  to  the  favor  of  the  Methodists  In  America."  — Tyerman, 

HI.  434. 


Wesley  '5  Final  Settlement  of  E^isco^al  Methodism.  167 


/.  Wesley'' s  Ordination  of  Thomas  Coke. 
In  February,  1784,  the  month  in  which  the  Deed  of  Dec- 
laration was  enrolled  in  Chancery,  Mr.  Wesley  called  Dr. 
Coke  into  his  private  chamber  in  London  and  introduced 
the  subject  of  providing  for  the  American  Methodists  in 
nearly  the  following  manner: 

That,  as  the  revolution  in  America  had  separated  the  United  States  from 
the  mother  country  for  ever,  and  the  Episcopal  Establishment  was  utterly 
abolished,  the  societies  had  been  represented  to  him  in  a  most  deplorable 
condition.  That  an  appeal  had  also  been  made  to  him  through  Mr.  Asbury, 
in  which  he  was  requested  to  provide  for  them  some  mode  of  church  gov- 
ernment, suited  to  their  exigencies;  and  that  having  long  and  seriously  re- 
volved the  subject  in  his  thoughts,  he  intended  to  adopt  the  plan  which  he 
was  now  about  to  unfold.  That  as  he  had  invariably  endeavored,  in  every 
step  he  had  taken,  to  keep  as  closely  to  the  Bible  as  possible,  so,  on  the  pres- 
ent occasion,  he  hoped  he  was  not  about  to  deviate  from  it.  That,  keeping 
his  eye  upon  the  conduct  of  the  primitive  churches  in  the  ages  of  unadul- 
terated Christianity,  he  had  much  admired  the  mode  of  ordaining  bishops 
which  the  church  of  Alexandria  had  practiced.  That,  to  preserve  its  puritv, 
that  church  would  never  suffer  the  interference  of  a  foreign  bishop  in  any 
of  their  ordinations;  but  that  the  presbyters  of  that  venerable  apostolic 
church,  on  the  death  of  a  bishop,  exercised  the  right  of  ordaining  another 
from  their  own  body,  by  the  laj'ing  on  of  their  own  hands;  and  that  this 
practice  continued  among  them  for  two  hundred  years,  till  the  days  of  Dio- 
nysius.  And  finally,  that,  being  himself  a  presbyter,  he  wished  Dr.  Coke  to 
accept  ordination  from  his  hands,  and  to  proceed  in  that  character  to  the 
continent  of  America,  to  superintend  the  societies  in  the  United  States.* 

Dr.  Coke  was  startled  and  expressed  his  doubts.  Mr. 
Wesley  recommended  to  his  attention  the  arguments  of 
Lord  King,  which  had  satisfied  his  own  mind;  but  still 
nearly  two  months  elapsed  before  Coke  gave  a  qualified  as- 
sent to  Wesley's  proposal.  And  here  we  may  briefly  re- 
view the  process  by  which  Mr.  Wesley  had  reached  the 
conclusions  which  he  privately  urged  upon  the  notice  of 
Dr.  Coke.  January  20,  1746,  nearly  forty  years  before  the 
period  at  which  we  are  now  arrived,  Wesley  set  out  on  a 
journey  to  Bristol,  and  read  Lord  King's  "  Inquiry  into  the 
Constitution,  DiscipHne,  Unity,  and  Worship  of  the  Primi- 

*Drew,  Life  of  Coke,  pp.  71,  72.  Mr.  Drew  incloses  this  narrative  in 
quotation  marks,  to  intimate,  I  suppose,  that  it  represents  a  memorandum  or 
dictation  of  Dr.  Coke's,  from  whom  alone  it  could  have  originated. 


i68 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Year:  1784. 


tive  Church."*  The  Dissenting  Lord  High  Chancellor's 
argument  convinced  the  High-church  clergyman,  and,  after 
the  perusal,  he  wrote,  "  In  spite  of  the  vehement  prejudice 
of  my  education,  I  was  ready  to  believe  that  this  was  a  fair 
and  impartial  draught;  but,  if  so,  it  would  follow  that  bish- 
ops and  presbyters  are  essentially  of  one  order,"  etc.  Ac- 
cordingly in  the  Minutes  of  the  Conference  of  1747  we  find 
the  following  questions  and  answers  on  the  subject  of  Church 
government: 

^.  What  instance  or  ground  is  there,  then,  in  the  New  Testament  for  a 
national  Church>  ^.  We  know  none  at  all.  We  apprehend  it  to  be  a  mere- 
ly political  institution.  Are  the  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
cons plainly  described  in  the  New  Testament.^  A.  We  think  they  are;  and 
believe  they  generally  obtained  in  the  Churches  of  the  apostolic  age.  ^. 
But  are  you  assured,  that  God  designed  the  same  plan  should  obtain  in  all 
Churches,  throughout  all  ages.''  A.  We  are  not  assured  of  this;  because  we 
do  not  know  that  it  is  asserted  in  Holy  Writ.  If  this  plan  were  essential 
to  a  Christian  Church,  what  must  become  of  all  the  foreign  reformed 
Churches.?  A.  It  would  follow,  that  they  are  no  parts  of  the  Church  of 
Christ!    A  consequence  full  of  shocking  absurdity.  In  what  age  was 

the  Divine  right  of  episcopacy  first  asserted  in  England.'  A.  About  the 
middle  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign.  Till  then  all  the  bishops  and  clergy  in 
England  continually  allowed,  and  joined  in,  the  ministrations  of  those  who 
were  not  episcopally  ordained. 

In  1756,  Wesley  wrote,  "  I  still  believe  '  the  espiscopal 
form  of  church  government  to  be  scriptural  and  apostol- 
ical.' I  mean  well  agreeing  with  the  practice  and  writings 
of  the  apostles;  but  that  it  is  prescribed  in  Scripture,  I  do  not 
believe.  This  opinion,  which  I  once  zealously  espoused,  I 
have  been  heartily  ashamed  of,  ever  since  I  read  Bishop 
Stillingfleet's  '  Irenicon.'  I  think  he  has  unanswerably 
proved  that  neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  prescribe  any 
particular  form  of  Church  government ;  and  that  the  plea  of 
Divine  right  for  diocesan  episcopacy  was  never  heard  of  in 
the  primitive  Church. "^l  In  1761,  he  declared  that  Stilling- 
fleet  had  convinced  him  that  it  "  was  an  entire  mistake  that 
none  but  episcopal  ordination  is  valid."  In  1780,  he 
shocked  Charles  with  the  claim,  "  I  verily  believe  I  have  as 


*Am.  ed.,  N.  Y.,  1S51.    t  Minutes,  ed.  1862, 1.  36.    J  Works,  Am.  ed.,  VII.  284. 


Wes/ey's  Final  Settletnent  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  169 


good  a  right  to  ordain  as  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper." 
And  finally,  in  August,  1785,  defending  his  course  in  a  letter 
to  his  brother,  he  writes,  "  I  firmly  befieve  I  am  a  scriptural 
iniaxonog',  as  much  as  any  man  in  England,  or  in  Europe; 
for  the  uninterrupted  succession  I  know  to  be  a  fable,  which 
no  man  ever  did  or  can  prove."  Here  is  provided  a  catena 
of  deliverances  extending  over  a  period  of  forty  years  from 
1746  to  1785  which  must  forever  set  at  rest  the  hasty  charge 
that  under  the  impulse  of  excitement  or  the  demands  of  an 
unexpected  emergency  the  octogenarian  Wesley  canceled 
his  lifelong  convictions. 

But  the  ambitious  Coke  has  not  yet  consented  to  the  ordi- 
nation. In  about  two  months,  as  intimated  above,  he  wrote 
acceding  to  it,  though  still  suggesting  delay,  or,  if  possible, 
some  modification  of  the  plan.    Here  is  his  letter: 

Near  Dublin,  April  17,  1784. 
Honored  and  very  dear  Sir:  I  intended  to  trouble  you  no  more  about  my 
going  to  America;  but  your  observations  incline  me  to  address  you  again 
on  the  subject. 

If  some  one,  in  whom  you  could  place  the  fullest  confidence,  and  whom 
you  think  likely  to  have  sufficient  influence  and  prudence  and  delicacy  of 
conduct  for  the  purpose,  were  to  go  over  and  return,  you  would  then  have 
a  source  of  sufficient  information  to  determine  on  any  points  or  proposi- 
tions. I  may  be  destitute  of  the  last  mentioned  essential  qualification  (to 
the  former  I  lay  claim  without  reserve);  otherwise  my  taking  such  a  voyage 
might  be  expedient. 

By  this  means  you  might  have  fuller  information  concerning  the  state  of 
the  country  and  the  societies  than  epistolary  correspondence  can  give  vou; 
and  there  might  be  a  cement  of  union,  remaining  after  your  death,  between 
the  societies  and  preachers  of  the  two  countries.  If  the  awful  event  of  your 
decease  should  happen  before  my  removal  to  the  world  of  spirits,  it  is  al- 
most certain,  that  I  should  have  business  enough,  of  indispensable  impor- 
tance, on  my  hands  in  these  kingdoms. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  your  most  dutiful  and  most  affectionate  son, 

Thomas  Coke. 

Here  the  matter  rested  until  the  Leeds  Conference  of 
1784.  Pawson  relates  that  ordination  was  first  proposed  by 
Wesley  himself  in  his  select  committee  of  consultation. 
Says  he:  "The  preachers  were  astonished  when  this  was 
mentioned,  and,  to  a  man,  opposed  it.  But  I  plainly  saw 
that  it  would  be  done,  as  Mr.  Wesley's  mind  appeared  to 


170  The  Grand  Climacteric  Year:  1784. 


be  quite  made  up."  *  And  he  proved  a  match  for  all  of 
them. 

Coke,  Whatcoat,  and  Vasey  were  selected  for  the  Amer- 
ican work.  Shortly  after  the  close  of  the  Conference,  Dr. 
Coke  addressed  Mr.  Wesley  the  following  epistle : 

August  9,  1784. 

Honored  and  dear  Sir:  The  more  maturely  I  consider  the  subject,  the 
more  expedient  it  appears  to  me,  that  the  power  of  ordaining  others  should 
be  received  by  me  from  you,  by  the  imposition  of  your  hands;  and  that  you 
should  lay  your  hands  on  brother  Whatcoat  and  brother  Vasey,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons:  (i)  It  seems  to  me  the  most  scriptural  way,  and  most 
agreeable  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  churches.  (2)  I  may  want  all  the 
influence,  in  America,  which  you  can  throw  into  my  scale.  Mr.  Bracken- 
bury  informed  me  at  Leeds,  that  he  saw  a  letter  from  Mr.  Asbury,  in  which 
he  said  that  he  would  not  receive  any  person,  deputed  by  you,  with  any 
part  of  the  superintendency  of  the  work  invested  in  him ;  or  words  which 
evidently  implied  so  much.  I  do  not  find  the  least  degree  of  prejudice  in 
my  mind  against  Mr.  Asbury;  on  the  contrary,  I  find  a  very  great  love  and 
esteem ;  and  am  determined  not  to  stir  a  finger  without  his  consent,  unless 
necessity  obliges  me;  but  rather  to  be  at  his  feet  in  all  things.  But,  as  the 
journey  is  long,  and  you  cannot  spare  me  often,  it  is  well  to  provide  against 
all  events;  and  I  am  satisfied  that  an  authority,  formally  received  from  you 
will  be  fully  admitted;  and  that  my  exercising  the  office  of  ordination,  with- 
out that  formal  authority,  may  be  disputed,  and  perhaps,  on  other  accounts, 
opposed.  I  think  you  have  tried  me  too  often  to  doubt,  whether  I  will,  in 
any  degree,  use  the  power  you  are  pleased  to  invest  me  with,  further  than 
I  believe  absolutely  necessary  for  the  prosperity  of  the  work. 

In  respect  of  my  brethren  Whatcoat  and  Vasey,  it  is  very  uncertain 
whether  any  of  the  clergy,  mentioned  by  brother  Rankin,  except  Mr.  Jar- 
ratt,  will  stir  a  step  with  me  in  the  work;  and  it  is  by  no  means  certain,  that 
even  he  will  choose  to  join  me  in  ordaining;  and  propriety  and  universal 
practice  make  it  expedient,  that  I  should  have  two  presbyters  with  me  in  this 
work.  In  short,  it  appears  to  me,  that  everything  should  be  prepared,  and 
evervthing  proper  be  done,  that  can  possibly  be  done,  on  this  side  the  water. 

You  can  do  all  this  in  Mr.  C  n's  house,  in  your  chamber ;  and  afterwards, 

(according  to  Mr.  Fletcher's  advice,)  give  us  letters  testimonial  of  the  differ- 
ent offices  with  which  you  have  been  pleased  to  invest  us.  For  the  purpose 
of  laying  hands  on  brothers  Whatcoat  and  Vasey,  I  can  bring  Mr.  Creighton 
down  with  me,  by  which  you  will  have  two  presbyters  with  you. 

In  respect  to  brother  Rankin's  argument,  that  you  will  escape  a  great 
deal  of  odium  by  omitting  this,  it  is  nothing.  E^ither  it  will  be  known,  or  not 
known.  If  not  known,  then  no  odium  will  arise;  but  if  known,  you  will  be 
obliged  to  acknowledge,  that  I  acted  under  your  direction,  or  suffer  me  to 
sink  under  the  weight  of  my  enemies,  with  perhaps  your  brother  at  the 
head  of  them.    I  shall  entreat  you  to  ponder  these  things. 

Your  most  dutiful,   Thomas  Coke. 


*  MS.  memoir  of  Whitehead. 


Wes/ey's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  171 


Whitehead  thinks  this  letter  affords  materials  for  observa- 
tions both  "  serious  and  comic."  Tyerman  concludes  from 
it  that  Wesley  had  never  intended  ordaining  Coke,  but,  at 
his  request,  acquiesced.  This  conclusion,  in  view  of  the 
attendant  facts,  is,  as  we  shall  see,  unwarranted.  But,  if  it 
were,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  affects  either  Coke's  char- 
acter or  the  foundations  of  Methodist  Episcopacy.  Wesley, 
whether  by  persuasion  or  of  his  own  motion,  did  ordain  Coke 
with  the  convictions  and  purposes  which  have  been  considered 
at  length.  But  the  letter  is  susceptible  of  a  natural  and,  it 
might  be  added,  necessary  interpretation.  Pawson,  whose 
testimony  at  a  later  date  when  he  was  President  of  the  Con- 
ference is  decisive  of  what  Wesley  intended  by  Coke's  and 
later  episcopal  ordinations,  declared  positively,  as  Mr.  Tyer- 
man cites,  that,  at  Conference,  Mr.  Wesley's  select  commit- 
tee of  consultation  were  "  to  a  man"  opposed  to  the  ordi- 
nation project.  Yet  Mr.  Wesley's  mind  was  "quite  made 
up  "  and  Mr.  Pawson  "  plainly  saw  it  would  be  done."  It 
was  determined  in  Conference  that  Coke,  Whatcoat,  and 
Vasey  should  go  to  America.  That  point  being  fixed  be- 
yond recall,  it  was  of  the  first  importance  to  Coke  in  what 
character  and  with  what  powers  he  should  go.  The  oppo- 
sition to  the  ordinations  could  not  be  unknown  to  him.  He 
knew  what  influences  were  now  at  work  about  his  chief. 
While  the  saintly  Fletcher  indorsed  the  step,  the  returned 
Rankin  counseled  against  it.  Where  Charles  Wesley  stood 
everybody  knew.  Any  prudent  man  could  foresee  the  deli- 
cate position  in  which  the  new  envoy  and  joint  superintend- 
ent would  be  placed  in  relation  to  Mr.  Asbury.  He  came  to 
share  his  powers  and  in  some  respects  to  assume  a  superior 
position,  as  Mr.  Wesley's  delegate,  a  clergyman  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  the  organizing  officer  of  the  new 
Church.  Coke's  conduct  at  this  juncture  and  after  his  ar- 
rival in  America,  when  Mr.  Dickins  advised  him  to  carry 
out  his  mission  on  Mr.  Wesley's  authority  without  consult- 
ing Mr.  Asbury,  must  win  our  admiration  for  its  obvious 
delicacy  and  nice  sense  of  propriety.    In  these  transactions, 


172  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


the  foreign  minister  of  Methodism  showed  himself  a  dip- 
lomat as  well  as  a  gentleman  and  a  Christian. 

Dr.  Coke's  reference  to  his  having  seen  "  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Asbury,  in  which  he  observed  that  he  would  not  receive 
any  person,  deputed  by  you,  with  any  part  of  the  superin- 
tendency,"  is  perhaps  best  understood  in  the  light  of  a  letter 
of  Asburj^'s  addressed  to  Wesley  under  date  of  September 
20,  1783: 

No  person  can  manage  the  lay  preachers  here  so  well,  it  is  thought,  as 
one  that  has  been  at  the  raising  of  most  of  them.  No  man  can  make  a 
proper  change  upon  paper  to  send  one  here  and  another  [there]  without 
knowing  the  circuits  and  the  gifts  of  all  the  preachers,  unless  he  is  always 
out  among  them.  My  dear  sir,  a  matter  of  the  greatest  consequence  now 
lies  before  you.  If  you  send  preachers  to  America,  let  them  be  proper  per- 
sons. We  are  now  united;  all  things  go  on  well  considering  the  storms  and 
difficulties  we  have  had  to  ride  through.  I  wish  men  of  the  greatest  under- 
standing would  write  impartial  accounts,  for  it  would  be  better  for  us  not  to 
have  preachers  than  to  be  divided.  This  I  know,  great  men  that  can  do 
good,  may  do  hurt  if  they  should  take  the  wrong  road.  I  have  labored  and 
suffered  much  to  keep  the  people  and  preachers  together,  and  if  I  am 
thought  worthy  to  keep  my  place  I  should  be  willing  to  labor  and  suffer  till 
death  for  peace  and  union. 

At  the  close  of  the  Leeds  Conference  of  1784  Mr.  Wes- 
ley went  to  Bristol  and  Dr.  Coke  to  London,  to  prepare  for 
his  voyage  to  America.  While  in  London  he  received  a 
letter  from  Wesley  asking  his  immediate  presence  in  Bristol 
and  directing  him  to  bring  with  him  the  Rev.  Mr.  Creigh- 
ton,  a  regularly  ordained  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland, who  had  long  officiated  in  Wesley's  London  chapels. 
"  The  Doctor  and  Mr.  Creighton  accordingly  met  him  in 
Bristol,  when,  with  their  assistance,  he  ordained  Mr.  Rich- 
ard Whatcoat  and  Mr.  Thomas  Vasey  presbyters  for  Amer- 
ica; and  being  peculiarly  attached  to  every  rite  of  the 
Church  of  England,  did  afterward  ordain  Dr.  Coke  a  su- 
perintendent, giving  him  letters  of  ordination  under  his  hand 
and  seal."*  Whatcoat,  one  of  the  most  exact  and  reHable 
of  our  primitive  sources,  in  his  Journal  says: 

September  i,  1784,  Rev.  John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  and  James  Creigh- 

*Coke  and  Moore's  Life  of  Wesley,  Eng.  ed.,  p.  459. 


Wesley  '5  Final  Settlement  of  E^iscofal  Methodism .  173 


ton,  presbyters  of  the  Church  of  England,  formed  a  presbytery  and  or- 
dained Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey  deacons.  And  on  September 
2d,  by  the  same  hands,  etc.,  Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey  were  or- 
dained elders,  and  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  was  ordained  superintendent  for 
the  Church  of  God  under  our  care  in  North  America. 

"On  Wednesday,  September  ist,"  says  Wesley  in  his 
Journal,  "  being  now  clear  in  my  own  mind,  I  took  a  step 
which  I  had  long  -weighed,  and  appointed  three  of  our  breth- 
ren to  go  and  serve  the  desolate  sheep  in  America,  which  I 
verily  believe  will  be  much  to  the  glory  of  God."  Charles 
Wesley  was  present  at  the  time  in  Bristol,  but  he  was  not  in- 
vited to  assist  in  the  ordinations.  His  help  was  not  needed, 
neither  was  he  left  in  ignorance  for  the  sake  of  concealment. 
It  was  well  known  that  he  would  not  cooperate:  his  brother, 
having  decided,  resolved  to  give  him  no  opportunity  to  op- 
pose and  hinder.  It  proves  the  clearness  and  strength  of 
Wesley's  resolution,  rather  than  hesitancy  or  doubt.  That 
he  did  not  regret  the  step  is  evident  from  the  language  in- 
serted in  the  Conference  Minutes  of  1786: 

Judging  this  to  be  a  case  of  real  necessity,  I  took  a  step  which,  for  peace 
and  quietness  I  had  refrained  from  taking  many  years;  I  exercised  that 
power  which  I  am  fully  persuaded  the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  the 
Church  has  given  me.  I  appointed  three  of  our  laborers  to  go  and  help  them, 
by  not  only  preaching  the  word  of  God,  but  likewise  administering  the  Lord's 
6upper,  and  baptizing  their  children  throughout  that  vast  tract  of  land.* 

Thus  on  the  second  of  September,  1784,  in  the  city  of 
Bristol,  England,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  presb}^- 
ter  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  by  John  Wesley,  Found- 
er of  the  people  called  Methodists,  assisted  by  the  Rev. 
James  Creighton,  Richard  Whatcoat,  and  Thomas  Vasey, 
ordained  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands  the  first  *'  superin- 
tendent or  bishop  of  the  Methodist  societies  in  America;  an 
act  of  as  high  propriety  and  dignity  as  it  was  of  urgent  ne- 
cessity."! The  "  letters  of  episcopal  orders,"  as  they  were 
soon  after  described  to  be  in  the  discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  delivered  by  Wesley  into  the  hands  of 


♦Minutes,  ed.  1812,  I.  190;  ed.  1S62,  I.  192.  |Stevens,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  II.  215. 


174 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


Coke  were  couched  in  these  clear,  direct,  and  comprehen- 
sive terms: 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  John  Wesley,  late  Fellow  of 
Lincoln  College  in  Oxford,  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  sendeth 
greeting. 

Whereas  many  of  the  people  in  the  southern  provinces  of  North  Amer- 
ica, who  desire  to  continue  under  my  care,  and  still  adhere  to  the  doctrines 
and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,  are  greatly  distressed  for  want  of 
ministers  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
according  to  the  usage  of  the  said  Church ;  and  whereas  there  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  any  other  way  of  supplying  them  with  ministers: 

Know  all  men,  that  I,  John  Wesley,  think  myself  to  be  providentially 
called,  at  this  time,  to  set  apart  some  persons  for  the  work  of  the  ministry 
in  America.  And,  therefore,  under  the  protection  of  Almighty  God,  and 
with  a  single  eye  to  His  glory,  I  have  this  day  set  apart  as  a  superintendent, 
by  the  imposition  of  my  hands,  and  prayer,  (being  assisted  by  other  ordained 
ministers,)  Thomas  Coke,  doctor  of  civil  law,  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  a  man  whom  I  judge  to  be  well  qualified  for  that  great  work. 
And  I  do  hereby  recommend  him  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  as  a  fit  per- 
son to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ.  In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  here- 
unto set  my  hand  and  seal,  this  second  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-four.       John  Weslky.* 

How  greater  formality  and  decency  could  have  character- 
ized the  proceeding  it  is  difficult  to  conceive.  But  that  the 
new  American  Superintendent  might  be  fully  equipped  for 
his  weighty  mission,  Wesley  placed  in  his  hands  the  well- 
known  circular  letter,  a  solid  and  stately  document  of  trans- 
parent simplicity,  which  might  well  He  at  the  base  of  sacred 
franchises,  civil  or  ecclesiastical: 

Bristol,  SeJ>tember  10,  1784. 
To  Dr.  Coie,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  Brethren  in  North  America. 

By  a  very  uncommon  train  of  providences,  many  of  the  provinces  of 
North  America  are  totally  disjoined  from  the  mother  country,  and  erected 
into  independent  states.  The  English  government  has  no  authority  over 
them,  either  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  any  more  than  over  the  states  of  Holland. 
A  civil  authority  is  exercised  over  them,  partly  by  the  congress,  partly  by 
the  provincial  assemblies.  But  no  one  either  exercises  or  claims  any  ecclesi- 
astical authority  at  all.  In  this  peculiar  situation,  some  thousands  of  the  in- 
habitants of  these  states  desire  my  advice,  and,  in  compliance  with  their  de- 
sire, I  have  drawn  up  a  little  sketch. 

*A  facsimile  of  this  ordination  parchment  of  the  first  Methodist  bishop,  reproduced  for 
presentation  at  the  London  Ecumenical  of  1881,  lies  before  the  writer.  The  above  is  a  verba- 
tim copy. 


Wesley  's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  175 


Lord  King's  account  of  the  primitive  church  convinced  me,  many  years 
ago,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order,  and  consequently  have 
the  same  right  to  ordain.  For  many  years,  I  have  been  importuned,  from 
time  to  time,  to  exercise  this  right,  by  ordaining  part  of  our  traveling  preach- 
ers. But  I  have  still  refused;  not  only  for  peace  sake,  but  because  I  was 
determined,  as  little  as  possible,  to  violate  the  established  order  of  the  na- 
tional church  to  which  I  belonged. 

But  the  case  is  widely  different  between  England  and  North  America. 
Here  there  are  bishops,  who  have  a  legal  jurisdiction;  in  America  there  are 
none,  neither  any  parish  minister;  so  that,  for  some  hundreds  of  miles  to- 
gether, there  is  none  either  to  baptize,  or  to  administer  the  Lord's  supper. 
Here,  therefore,  my  scruples  are  at  an  end;  and  I  conceive  myself  at  full 
liberty,  as  I  violate  no  order,  and  invade  no  man's  rights,  by  appointing  and 
sending  laborers  into  the  harvest. 

I  have  accordingly  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  Asbury  to  be 
joint  superintendents  over  our  brethren  in  North  America;  as  also  Richard 
Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey,  to  act  as  elders  among  them,  by  baptizing  and 
administering  the  Lord's  supper.  And  I  have  prepared  a  liturgy,  little  dif- 
fering from  that  of  the  Church  of  England,  (I  think  the  best  constituted  na- 
tional church  in  the  world,)  which  I  advise  all  the  traveling  preachers  to 
use  on  the  Lord's  day,  in  all  the  congregations,  reading  the  litany  only  on 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays,  and  praying  extempore  on  all  other  days.  I  also 
advise  the  elders  to  administer  the  supper  of  the  Lord,  on  every  Lord's  da.y. 

If  any  one  will  point  out  a  more  rational  and  scriptural  way  of  feeding 
and  guiding  these  poor  sheep  in  the  wilderness,  I  will  gladly  embrace  it. 
At  present,  I  cannot  see  any  better  method  than  that  I  have  taken. 

It  has  indeed  been  proposed  to  desire  the  English  bishops  to  ordain  part 
of  our  preachers  for  America.  But  to  this  I  object,  i.  I  desired  the  bishop 
of  London  to  ordain  one,  but  could  not  prevail.  2.  If  they  consented,  we 
know  the  slowness  of  their  proceedings;  but  the  matter  admits  of  no  delay. 
3.  If  they  would  ordain  them  now,  they  would  expect  to  govern  them.  And 
how  grievously  would  this  entangle  us!  4.  As  our  American  brethren  are 
now  totally  disentangled,  both  from  the  state  and  the  English  hierarchy,  we 
dare  not  entangle  them  again,  either  with  the  one  or  the  other.  They  are 
now  at  full  libertj-,  simply  to  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive  church. 
And  we  judge  it  best  that  they  should  stand  fast  in  that  liberty  wherewith 
God  has  so  strangely  made  them  free.  John  Wesley.* 

Thus  empowered,  Superintendent  Coke  and  his  attend- 
ant presbyters  set  sail  for  America,  September  18.  All  things 
were  now  ready.  Soon  we  shall  join  them  with  Asburj-  and 
the  American  itinerants  at  Baltimore  in  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference. But  first  let  us  briefly  consider  Mr.  Wesley's  other 
ordinations. 


*Mr.  Wesley  officially  records  this  letter  in  the  British  Minutes  of  1785, 
ed.  1812,  I.  179-181;  ed.  1862,  I.  179,  180. 


176 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Year:  178^. 


J  J.  Mr.  Wesley's  Ordinations  for  Scotland  and  England. 

These  Scotch  and  English  ordinations  do  not  directly  con- 
cern our  theme,  except  as  they  conclusively  establish,  all 
contemporary  rumors  and  gossip  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing, that  Wesley  had  now  deliberately  entered  upon  a  course 
of  conduct  which  he  unregretfully  and  undeviatingly  pur- 
sued to  the  end  of  his  life.  A  little  less  than  a  year  after 
Coke's  ordination,  Wesley  ordained  three  ministers  for 
Scotland.  He  gives  us  this  account  in  his  Journal:  "  1785: 
August  I. — Having,  with  a  few  select  friends,  weighed  the 
matter  thoroughly,  I  yielded  to  their  judgment,  and  set  apart 
three  of  our  well-tried  preachers,  John  Pawson,  Thomas 
Hanby,  and  Joseph  Taylor,  to  minister  in  Scotland.' 
These  ordinations  occurred  during  the  session  of  the  Confer- 
ence, which  adjourned  August  3.  "  Our  peaceful  Confer- 
ence ended,"  says  Wesley,  "  the  God  of  power  having  pre- 
sided over  all  our  consultations."*  At  the  Conference  of 
1786  Wesley  ordained  Joshua  Keighley  and  Charles  Atmore 
for  Scotland;  William  Warrener  for  Antigua;  and  William 
Hammett  for  Newfoundland.  In  1787,  Tyerman  states,  five 
others  were  ordained,  whose  names  he  does  not  mention. 
In  1788,  while  Wesley  was  traveling  in  Scotland,  he  or- 
dained John  Barber  and  Joseph  Cownley,  and  "  at  the  en- 
suing Conference,  seven  others,  including  Alexander  Ma- 
ther, who  was  ordained  to  the  office,  not  only  of  deacon  and 
elder,  but  of  superintendent.''''  t  If  Wesley  hesitatingly  be- 
stowed on  Coke  at  his  earnest  solicitation  a  nondescript 
third  ordination  which  meant  little  more  than  a  paternal 
blessing;  and  if  he  regarded  himself  as  really  incapable  of 
bestowing  anything  more  than  presbyterial  orders,  as  some 
maintain,  it  is  quite  impossible  to  understand  what  the  good 
man  meant  by  bestowing  the  orders  of  deacon,  elder,  and 
superintendent  upon  Mather  by  three  successive  impositions 
of  hands.  But  such  conduct  agrees  exactly  with  his  direct- 
ing Coke  to  bestow  three  ordinations  upon  Asbury,  and  his 
inserting  the  three  ordination  forms  of  the  English  Church 

♦Journal,  Amer.  ed.,  II.  622.    "fill.  441. 


Wesley 's  Final  Settlement  of  Efiscofal  Methodism.  177 

in  the  first  prayer-book  of  American  Methodism.  Was  not 
the  man  who  did  these  things  still  an  Episcopalian?  *  Does 
not  such  an  act  as  the  threefold  ordination  of  Mather  when 
Wesley  was  eighty-five  years  old,  just  three  years  before  his 
death,  look  as  if  he  meant  to  organize  and  perpetuate  an 
Episcopal  Church  in  England  as  well  as  in  America?  Or, 
at  least,  to  give  his  followers  the  means  of  readily  so  doing 
after  his  death?  In  1789  Wesley  ordained  Henry  Moore 
and  Thomas  Rankin,  they  with  Mather  being  designed  for 
service  in  England.  Thus,  when  Wesley  departed  this  life, 
he  left  in  England  a  Superintendent  and  at  least  two  pres- 
byters of  the  most  eminent  station  and  character — Mather 
was  elected  President  of  the  second  Conference  after  Wes- 
ley's death  (1792)  and  Moore  served  twice  in  that  capacity 
(in  1804  and  1823) — from  whom  the  ultra-conservative  and 
divided  English,  if  they  would,  might  have  originated  a 
British  Church  fashioned  after  Wesley's  American  model. 
We  begin  to  see  light,  now,  on  some  of  Charles  Wesley's 
fears  and  accusations.  "  When  once  you  began  ordaining 
in  America,"  he  writes,  "  I  knew  and  you  knew  that  your 
preachers  here  would  never  rest  till  you  ordained  them. 
You  told  me  they  would  separate  by  and  by.  The  Doctor 
tells  us  the  same.  His  Methodist  Efiscofal  Church  in 
Baltimore  was  ititendcd  to  beget  a  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  here.  You  know  he  comes,  armed  with  your  au- 
thority, to  make  us  all  Dissenters.  One  of  your  sons  as- 
sured me  that  not  a  preacher  in  London  would  refuse  orders 
from  the  Doctor."  t  In  his  reply  of  five  days  later  John  en- 
tered no  denial  or  demurrer  to  any  of  these  radical  accusa- 
tions. Tyerman  quotes  a  brief  passage  from  a  letter  of 
John  Pawson's,  written  in  1793  while  he  was  President  of 

*  Certain  objectors  seem  never  to  tire  of  the  argument  that  since  Wesley 
held  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  of  the  same  order,  he  therefore  be- 
lieved that  a  presbyter  is  a  bishop,  and  a  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  despite  his 
bestowing  a  third  ordination  on  presbyters.  Such  reasoning  has  the  same 
logical  value  as  concluding  that  because  a  tig'er  and  a  cat  are  of  the  same  or- 
der, therefore  a  tiger  is  a  cat  and  a  cat  is  a  tiger. 

t  Letter  of  Aug.  14,  1785. 
12 


178 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784.. 


the  Conference,  but  places  it  in  connections  which  tend  to 
break  the  force  of  the  small  section  he  cites.*  It  will  be 
well  to  consider  the  whole  : 

It  will  by  no  means  answer  our  ends  to  dispute  one  with  another  as  to 
which  is  the  most  scriptural  form  of  Church  government.  We  should  con- 
sider our  present  circumstances,  and  endeavor  to  agree  upon  some  method 
bj  which  our  people  may  have  the  ordinances  of  God,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  be  preserved  from  division.  I  care  not  a  rush  whether  it  be  Episcopal 
or  Presbyterian;  I  believe  neither  of  them  to  be  purely  scriptural.  But  our 
preachers  and  people  in  general  are  prejudiced  against  the  latter;  conse- 
quently, if  the  former  will  answer  our  end,  we  ought  to  embrace  it.  In- 
deed, I  believe  it  will  suit  our  present  plan  far  better  than  the  other.  The 
design  of  Mr.  Wesley  will  weigh  much  with  many,  which  now  evidently 
appears  to  have  been  this:  He  foresaw  that  the  Methodists  would,  after  his 
death,  soon  become  a  distinct  people;  he  was  deeply  prejudiced  against  a 
Presbyterian,  and  was  as  much  in  favor  of  an  Episcopal  form  of  government. 
In  order,  therefore,  to  preserve  all  that  was  valuable  in  the  Church  of  En- 
gland among  the  Methodists,  he  ordained  Mr.  Mather  and  Dr.  Coke  bish- 
ops. These  he  undoubtedly  designed  should  ordain  others.  Mr.  Mather 
told  us  so  at  the  Manchester  Conference,  but  we  did  not  then  understand 
him.  I  see  no  way  of  coming  to  any  good  settlement  but  on  the  plan  I 
mentioned  before.  I  sincerely  wish  that  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Mather  may  be 
allowed  to  be  what  they  are,  bishops.  We  must  have  ordination  among  us 
at  any  rate.f 

Rev,  Dr.  James  Dixon,  President  of  the  Wesleyan  Con- 
ference in  1841,  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  in  a  sermon 
preached  before  the  Conference  that  "the  constitution  of 
the  American  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  only  a  legiti- 
mate development  of  the  principle  [of  Wesley's  ordinations]  ; 
and,  it  may  be  added,  that  an  imitation  of  that  great  trans- 
action in  this  country  would  be  perfectly  justifiable  on  the 
ground  assumed  by  Mr.  Wesley  himself,  and  held  sacred  by 
his  followers."  %  In  another  connection,  the  same  author- 
ity says,  "  If  we  mistake  not,  it  is  to  the  American  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  real  mind 
and  sentiments  of  this  great  man."  §    So  President  Pawson 

*  Life,  III.  443. 

■]-  Smith,  Hist,  of  Wesleyan  Meth.,  II.  3,  4. 

J  Methodism  in  its  Origin,  Economy,  and  Present  Position,  N.  Y.,  Lane 
and  Scott,  1848,  pp.  221,  222. 
%Ibid.,  p.  248. 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  179 


thought  in  1793  and,  says  Stevens,  "  some  of  the  most  com- 
manding members  of  the  Conference  concurred  with  him, 
and  received  his  suggestion  as  the  most  likely  solution  of 
their  formidable  difficulties." 

This  leads  to  an  easy  and  natural  explanation  of  one  of 
the  most  serious  charges  of  "  ambition,"  against  Bishop 
Coke,  with  which  this  section  of  our  narrative  may  fitly 
close.  "In  1794,  he  secretly  summoned  a  meeting  at 
Litchfield  of  the  most  influential  of  the  English  preachers 
and  passed  a  resolution  that  the  Conference  should  appoint 
an  order  of  bishops,  to  ordain  deacons  and  elders,  he  him- 
self, of  course,  expecting  to  be  a  member  of  the  prelatical 
brotherhood."  *  It  was  the  year  of  Pawson's  proposal  of 
Episcopacy  and  of  the  widespread  agitations  of  Alexander 
Kilham,  who  stigmatized  the  Litchfield  meeting  as  "a  con- 
spiracy to  place  pretentious  prelates  over  the  people." 
President  Pawson,  Superintendents  Coke  and  Mather,  Dr. 
Adam  Clarke,  Henry  Moore,  Bradburn,  Taylor,  and  Rog- 
ers were  present  at  the  meeting — an  eminently  weighty  and 
respectable  company,  entitled  by  every  token  to  take  meas- 
ures for  the  relief  of  the  distractions  of  Zion.  Coke  ad- 
dressed the  assembly  and  enlarged  upon  the  prosperity  of 
Episcopal  Methodism  in  America,  and  the  relief  which 
Wesley's  plan  had  given  in  a  similar  sacramental  controver- 
sy there.  All  present  had  been  ordained  by  Wesley,  save 
Dr.  Clarke,  Bradburn,  and  Rogers.  Coke  suggested  the 
rational  and  scriptural  plan  of  originating  from  among 
themselves  a  Wesleyan  ministry  in  three  orders — as,  no 
doubt,  Mr.  Wesley,  as  Pawson  had  suggested,  had  intend- 
ed they  should  do. 

Most  of  the  meeting  approved  his  proposition;  but  Moore  very  wiselv 
suggested  that  they  should  confine  their  proceedings  to  the  discussion  of  its 
practicability,  and  defer  its  decision  to  the  next  Conference.  He,  however, 
pronounced  the  measure  a  scriptural  and  suitable  expedient  for  the  govern- 
ment of  any  Christian  Church.  Mather  concurred  with  Moore.  They  ad- 
journed after  adopting  a  series  of  resolutions  which  were  to  be  submitted 
with  all  their  signatures  to  the  Annual  Conference.    They  proposed  "  an 


*Tyennan,  III.  434. 


i8o 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  iy8^. 


order  of  superintendents,"  to  be  annually  chosen-"  if  necessary;"  the  ordi- 
nation of  the  preachers  as  deacons  and  elders;  the  division  of  the  Connec- 
tion into  seven  or  eight  districts,  each  to  be  under  the  care  of  one  of  the  su- 
perintendents who  should  have  power  to  call  in  the  assistance  of  the  Presi- 
dent in  any  exigency.  They  all  agreed  to  "recommend  and  support"  this 
scheme  in  the  Conference  as  "a  thing  greatly  wanted,  and  likely  to  be  of 
much  advantage  to  the  work  of  God."* 

The  excitement  of  the  times,  the  negotiations  pending  be- 
tween the  Conference  and  the  body  of  delegated  trustees, 
etc.,  were  unfavorable  to  calm  consideration  and  the  wisest 
action;  consequently  the  Litchfield  resolutions  were  voted 
down.  Otherwise  such  a  body  of  united,  weighty,  and  de- 
termined men  ought  to  have  carried  their  plan  through. 
So  nearly  did  English  Methodism  come  to  the  adoption  of 
the  Episcopal  form  of  Church  government. 

///.  Mr.  Asbury  and  the  Calling  of  the  Christinas  Con- 
ference. 

Superintendent  Coke  and  Presbyters  Whatcoat  and  Vasey 
landed  at  New  York,  November  3,  1784.  Dr.  Coke  imme- 
diately revealed  his  character  and  mission  to  John  Dickins, 
the  preacher  stationed  in  that  city.  In  his  Journal,  under 
the  date  of  his  landing,  he  says: 

I  have  opened  Mr.  Wesley's  plan  to  Brother  Dickins,  the  traveling 
preacher  stationed  at  this  place,  and  he  highly  approves  of  it;  says  that  all 
the  preachers  most  earnestly  long  for  such  a  reformation,  and  that  Mr.  As- 
bury he  is  sure  will  agree  to  it.  He  presses  me  most  earnestly  to  make  it 
public,  because,  as  he  most  justly  argues,  Mr.  Wesley  has  determined  the 
point,  atid  therefore  it  is  not  to  be  investigated,  hut  complied  ivith. 

So  the  entry  reads  in  the  London  edition  of  "  extracts" 
from  Coke's  Journals  (1793);  in  the  original  Journal  print- 
ed in  the  Philadelphia  Arminian  Magazine  (1789),  the  ital- 
icized words  quoted  above  are  replaced  by  these:  ^'■though 
Mr.  Asbury  is  most  respectfully  to  be  consulted  in  respect  to 
every  part  of  the  execution  of  it."^  This  accurately  repre- 
sents what  Coke  actually  did,  and  doubtless  insisted  on  in 
his  first  interview  with  Dickins,  whose  advice,  it  will  be 

*  Stevens,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  III.  52,  53.    The  resolutions,  bearing  the  signa- 
ture of  Adam  Clarke,  are  in  Smith's  Hist,  of  Wesl.  Meth.,  II.  Appendix  9. 
|Arminian  Magazine,  Philadelphia,  May,  1789,  p.  242. 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Efiscofal  Methodism.  i8i 


seen,  was  not  followed.  On  the  night  of  his  arrival,  Coke 
preached  his  first  sermon  in  America  in  John  Street  chapel. 
The  third  day  he  set  out  for  Philadelphia,  arriving  on  Satur- 
day evening.  Sunday  morning  the  Methodist  Superintend- 
ent filled  the  pulpit  of  Dr.  McGaw,  (a  clergyman  mentioned 
by  Asbury  as  friendly  to  the  Methodists)  at  St.  Paul's  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church — or,  rather,  what  soon  afterwards 
became  such,  as  that  eminently  respectable  denomination  of 
Christians  had  not  yet  been  organized  in  America.  In  the 
evening  he  preached  at  St.  George's,  the  Methodist  cathe- 
dral, where  Rankin  had  held  the  first  Conference  more  than 
eleven  years  before.  Drs.  McGaw  and  White — the  latter 
afterward  the  first  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  Pennsylvania — called  to  see  him  Monday,  and 
Dr.  White  tendered  him  the  use  of  his  church  for  the  fol- 
lowing Sunday,  which,  however,  he  was  obliged  to  decline. 
On  Friday,  November  12,  Coke  preached  at  the  "  Cross 
Roads  "  in  Delaware,  and  the  next  day  was  received  by  Mr. 
Richard  Bassett,  a  member  of  the  executive  council  of  the 
state,  and  afterward  of  the  convention  which  framed  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  governor  of  Delaware, 
who,  though  not  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Society,  was, 
like  the  Capernaum  centurion,  erecting  a  large  chapel  at  his 
own  expense.  Here  he  met  Freeborn  Garrettson  whom  he 
describes  as  " all  meekness,  love,  and  activity."  "On  Sun- 
day, the  fourteenth  of  November,  the  day  on  which  a  bishop 
for  Connecticut  [Samuel  Seabury]  was  consecrated  at  Aber- 
deen, [by  Scotch  non-juring  prelates]  he  preached  in  a  chap- 
el in  the  midst  of  a  forest  to  a  noble  congregation."  *  Of 
this  meeting  Dr.  Coke  writes: 

After  the  sermon  a  plain,  robust  man  came  up  to  me  in  the  pulpit  and 
kissed  me.  I  thought  it  could  be  no  other  than  Mr.  Asbury,  and  I  was  not 
deceived.  I  administered  the  sacrament,  after  preaching,  to  five  or  six 
hundred  communicants,  and  held  a  love-feast.    It  was  the  best  season  I 


'■■'George  Bancroft,  Hist,  of  United  States,  Author's  Last  Revision,  1886,  VI.  162.  On  pages 
160-164,  Mr.  Bancroft  gives  a  vivid  and,  as  to  facts,  entirely  accurate  account  of  the  origin 
of  the  "new  Episcopal  Church."  He  misconstrues  Wesley's  motives,  however,  when  he  says 
he  "resolved  to  get  the  surt  of  the  English  hierarchy."  How  long  he  had  waited,  we  have 
seen. 


l82 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784.. 


ever  knew,  except  one  at  Charlemont  in  Ireland.  \^  After  dinner  Mr.  Asbury 
and  I  had  a  private  conversation  on  the  future  management  of  our  affairs 
in  America.  He  informed  me  that  he  had  received  some  intimations  of  my 
arrival  on  the  continent,  and  had  collected  a  considerable  number  of  the 
preachers  to  form  a  council,  and  if  they  were  of  opinion  that  it  would  be  ex- 
pedient immediately  to  call  a  Conference,  it  should  be  done.  They  were 
accordingly  sent  for,  and,  after  debate,  were  unanimously  of  that  opinion. 
We  therefore  sent  off  Freeborn  Garrettson,  like  an  arrow,  from  north  to 
south,  directing  him  to  send  messengers  to  the  right  and  left,  and  to  gather 
all  the  preachers  together  at  Baltimore  on  Christmas  eve.  Mr.  Asbury  has 
also  drawn  up  for  me  a  route  of  about  a  thousand  miles  in  the  meantime. 
He  has  given  me  his  black,  (Harry  by  name,)  and  borrowed  an  excellent 
horse  for  me.  I  exceedingly  reverence  Mr.  Asbury ;  he  has  so  much  wis- 
dom and  consideration,  so  much  meekness  and  love;  and  under  all  this, 
though  hardly  to  be  perceived,  so  much  command  and  authority.  He  and  I 
have  agreed  to  use  our  joint  endeavors  to  establish  a  school  or  college^  I 
baptized  here  thirty  or  forty  infants,  and  seven  adults.* 

An  eye-witness  gives  a  most  affecting  account  of  this 
first  meeting  of  American  Methodism's  first  Bishops: 

It  was  in  full  view  of  a  large  concourse  of  people — a  crowded  congrega- 
tion, assembled  for  public  worship.  While  Dr.  Coke  was  preaching,  Mr. 
Asbury  came  into  the  congregation.  A  solemn  pause  and  deep  silence  took 
place  at  the  close  of  the  sermon,  as  an  interval  for  introduction  and  saluta- 
tion. Asbury  and  Coke,  with  great  solemnity  and  much  dignified  sensibil- 
ity, and  with  full  hearts  of  brotherly  love,  approached,  embraced,  and  salut- 
ed each  other.  The  other  preachers,  at  the  same  time  participating  in  the 
tender  sensibilities  of  the  affectionate  salutations,  were  melted  into  sweet 
sympathy  and  tears.  The  congregation  also  caught  the  glowing  emotion, 
and  the  whole  assembly,  as  if  divinely  struck  with  a  shock  of  heavenly  elec- 
tricity, burst  into  a  flood  of  tears.— (Cooper,  Funeral  Discourse,  pp.  104,  105.) 

Asbury  says  in  his  Journal: 

Sunday  15.  [14]  I  came  to  Barratt's  chapel;  here,  to  my  great  joy,  I  met 
those  dear  men  of  God,  Dr.  Coke,  and  Richard  Whatcoat;  we  were  greatly 
comforted  together.  The  Doctor  preached_pn  "  Christ  our  wisdom,  right- 
eousness, sanctification,  and  redemption. '\  Having  had  no  opportunity  of 
conversing  with  them  before  public  worship,  I  was  greatlv  surprised  to  see 
brother  Whatcoat  assist  by  taking  the  cup  in  the  administration  of  the  sac- 
rament. I  was  shocked  when  first  informed  of  the  intention  of  these  my 
brethren  in  coming  to  this  country  :  it  may  be  of  God.  My  answer  then  was, 
if  the  preachers  unanimously  choose  me,  I  shall  not  act  in  the  capacity  I 
have  hitherto  done  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment.  The  design  of  organizing 
the  Methodists  into  an  Independent  Episcopal  Church  was  opened  to  the 
preachers  present,  and  it  was  agreed  to  call  a  general  conference,  to  meet  at 
Baltimore- the  ensuing  Christmas;  as  also  that  brother  Garrettson  go  off  to 
Virginia  to  give  notice  thereof  to  our  brethren  in  the  South.  I 
•  For  original  text,  see  Arm.  Mag.  (Phil.),  May,  1789,  pp.  243, 244;  or  Tigerfs  ed.  Coke's  Journal. 


Wesley 's  Final  Settlement  of  E^iscofal  Methodism.  183 


Coke's  account  closely  agrees  with  Asbury's  and  similar- 
ly indicates  some  doubt  and  hesitation  on  Asbury's  part. 
He  says:  "After  dining,  in  company  with  eleven  of  the 
preachers,  at  our  sister  Barratt's,  about  a  mile  from  the 
chapel,  I  privately  opened  our  plan  to  Mr.  Asbury.  He  ex- 
pressed considerable  doubts  concerning  it,  which  I  rather  ap- 
plaud than  otherwise.^''  * 
J  When  we  correlate  the  antecedent  history  in  both  England 
and  America  with  the  circumstances  in  which  Asbury  and 
the  American  Methodists  were  now  placed,  and  duly  ponder 
the  character  in  which  Mr.  Wesley  had  sent  Dr.  Coke  and 
the  declared  aims  of  his  mission,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
American  General  Assistant  was  "  shocked "  when  he 
learned  the  ministerial  standing  of  Coke,  Whatcoat,  and 
Vasey,  and  declared  "  if,lli&- preachers  unanimously  choose 
me,  I  shall  not  act  in  the  capacity  I  have  hitherto  done,  by 
Mr.  Wesley's  appointment."  He  had  hitherto  acted  in  the 
capacity  of  sole  Captain-general  of  the  American  itinerants 
and  Societies.  He  did  not  propose  the  instant  surrender  of 
this  position  to  a  stranger.  For  years  he  had  exercised  the 
functions  of  a  General  Superintendent,  save  those  of  ordina- 
tion and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments.  If  these  addi- 
tional powers  were  now  to  be  conferred  upon  him,  he  intend- 
ed that  his  new  position  should  be  based  upon  the  consent  of 
the  preachers  and  not  alone  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  extended  to  America  in  the  person  of  his  envoy. 
We  have  seen  how  Mr.  Asbury  was  first  recognized  as  Gen- 
eral Assistant  by  the  irregular  Delaware  Conference  of  1779, 
after  the  retirement  of  Mr.  Rankin  and  the  other  EngHsh 
preachers,  and  after  William  Watters  had  presided  at  the  Con- 
ference of  1778.  After  the  reunion  of  the  Northern  and  South- 
ern Conferences,  he  was  again  unanimously  chosen  in  1782  to 
"preside  over  the  American  Conferences  and  the  whole 
work,"  it  being  added,  however,  that  this  was  "  according 
to  Mr.  Wesley's  original  appointment."  During  Rankin's 
administration,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  differences  be- 

*  Philadelphia  Arminian  Magazine,  May,  1789,  p.  343;  also  Tigert's  reprint. 


184  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


tween  him  and  Asbury  had  become  so  serious,  that  Mr.  ^ 
Wesley  ordered  the  latter's  return  to  England.  But  during 
the  revolutionary  war  Mr.  Wesley's  control  of  the  Ameri- 
cans had  been  cut  off,  and  thus  Asbury's  leadership  had  be- 
come thoroughly  estabHshed  on  the  basis  of  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  preachers.  Wesley's  letter  which  Asbury 
received  on  Chrismas  eve,  1783,  exactly  one  year  before 
the  Christmas  Conference,  was  not  so  much  an  appointment 
to  the  office  of  General  Assistant  as  it  was  an  authoritative 
recognition  of  Asbury's  rightful  occupancy  of  that  position. 
He  could  not  easily  surrender  the  advantages  of  this  unique 
relation  which  he  sustained  to  the  preachers  and  the 
work.  Hence  his  proposal  to  call  a  Conference,  which  was 
neither  suggested  by  Coke  nor  contemplated  by  Wesley. 

Of  course,  Wesley  was  aware  that  the  Americans  had  been 
holding  an  Annual  Conference  since  1773.  Rankin  (1773- 
1777),  Watters  (1778),  Asbury  (1779-1784)  had  been  the 
presidents.  Rankin  had  used  the  same  presidential  powers 
which  Wesley  did  in  England.  When  Asbury  was  recog- 
nized in  1779,  it  had  been  expressly  provided  that  "  on  hear- 
ing every  preacher  for  and  against  what  is  in  debate,  the 
right  of  determination  shall  rest  with  him  according  to  the 
minutes."  That  a  Conference  of  these  limited  powers 
might  be  assembled,  if  convenient,  to  which  certain  privi- 
leges might  be  accorded  by  Coke  and  Asbury,  as  Wesley 
increasingly  did  in  England,*  Wesley  doubtless  supposed 
was  not  improbable.  But  Asbury's  aim,  in  deciding  on  a 
Conference  of  all  the  preachers,  in  that  initial  interview 
at  Barratt's  chapel,  was  something  quite  different.  Of  course 
he  did  not  propose,  as  an  ordained  Superintendent,  to  hand 
over  to  the  Conference  all  those  powers  which  he  had 
freely  exercised  in  the  presidential  chair  and  elsewhere 

*"Froin  the  beginning  he  was  the  center  and  seat  of  all  power  and 
authority;  and  although,  as  time  advanced,  he  gradually,  and  almost  imper- 
ceptibly, devolved  nearly  the  whole  administrative  government  of  the  So- 
cieties on  the  Conference  and  the  Assistants,  still  all  matters  of  peculiar  diffi- 
culty were  carried  to  him,  and  from  his  judgment  there  was  no  appeal." 
(Smith's  Hist,  of  Wesleyan  Meth.,  I.  513.) 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Episco-pal  Methodism.  185 


when  he  was  simply  an  elected  General  Assistant.  Down  to 
1792,  he  did  many  things,  as  his  revision  and  rearrangement 
of  the  Discipline  in  1787  and  his  developing  and  enlarging 
the  office  of  presiding  elder,  which  had  not  been  authorized 
by  Conference  action.  But  he  did  mean  by  placing  the 
election  of  the  Conference  behind  his  new  position  to  inter- 
pose a  sufficient  authority  between  himself  and  Mr.  Wesley. 
The  Christmas  Conference  of  1784  is  not  properly  the  begin- 
ning of  the  government  of  the  Church  by  the  General  Con- 
ference (  see  Appendix  V. )  ;  though  it  exercised  larger  powers 
than  had  ever  before  been  assumed  in  America.  It  conveys 
an  erroneous  impression  to  call  it  a  General  Conference,  if 
the  associations  of  later  years  are  allowed  to  cluster  around 
the  name.  It  was  general  only  in  the  sense  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  be  an  assembly  of  all  the  American  itinerants,  and 
that  it  did  determine  by  majority  vote  the  fate  of  the  meas- 
ures submitted  to  it.  But  in  it  there  was  not  a  single  deacon 
or  elder.  Ministerial  orders  came  to  it  from  Mr.  Wesley 
through  Dr.  Coke.  It  was  a  mass  convention  of  3'oung  itin- 
erants called  to  assist  in  organizing  a  Church.  The  bod}^  did 
not  provide  for  any  successor  or  any  future  session.  When  it 
adjourned  it  dissolved.  It  no  longer  possessed  either  actual 
or  potential  existence;  first  the  Baltimore  and  then  the  sev- 
eral yearly  Conferences  exercised  legislative  powers.  (See 
Appendix  VI. )  Nobody  could  tell  when,  if  at  all,  another  such 
general  body  would  be  convened.  Not  until  eight  years  la- 
ter, in  1792,  did  another  general  assembly  meet.  In  the 
meantime,  just  because  of  the  felt  want,  of  which  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  proper  was  the  final  solution,  was  the  disas- 
trous experiment  of  the  Council  attempted.  Nevertheless 
Mr.  Asbury's  proposal  was  the  germ  of  General  Confer- 
ence government.  The  situation  of  the  Americans  during 
the  war  had  brought  about  his  own  designation  to  office 
by  election  of  the  preachers.  He  now  followed  up  that 
precedent,  and  interposed  the  Conference  as  an  effectual 
barrier  against  the  supremacy  of  Mr.  Wesley. 

It  must  be  held  in  mind  that  this  year  1784  is  the  date  of 


1 86  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  178^. 

the  full  empowering  of  the  English  Conference  by  the  Deed 
of  Declaration.  As  English  Methodism  was  given  a  definite, 
legal  status  by  a  clear  and  rigid  constitution  framed  for  the 
Conference,  it  seems  to  some  writers  all  the  more  incompre- 
hensible that  a  Conference  should  not  have  been  the  chief 
feature  in  Wesley's  organization  of  Episcopal  Methodism  on 
this  side  the  water.  The  absence  of  provision  for  a  Confer- 
ence has  created  so  urgent  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of  a  few 
chroniclers  that  they  have  ventured  in  late  years  to  maintain 
that  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  intend  the  organization  of  what 
Asbury,  in  his  account  of  his  first  interview  with  Coke, 
styles  an  "  Independent  Episcopal  Church,"  independent, 
that  is,  of  the  Church  of  England,  or  its  languishing  remains 
in  the  States.  That  Coke,  Asbury,  and  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference so  understood,  and  accordingly  executed,  the  de- 
signs of  the  Founder  is  not  disputed,  or,  indeed,  disputable. 
But  this  proceeding  is  attributed  to  excess  of  zeal  and  the 
overweening  ambition  of  Coke,  who  transcended  his  powers 
and  overleaped  the  modest  designs  of  Wesley.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  Wesley  constituted  a  ministry  in  three  grades  or 
orders ;  that  he  abridged  the  thirty-nine  articles  to  constitute 
a  doctrinal  basis  for  the  new  organization;  that  from  the 
English  Book  of  Common  Prayer  he  framed  a  liturgy  for 
public  worship;  and  that  he  embodied  these  provisions  in  a 
work  entrusted  to  Coke's  custody  entitled,  "The  Sunday 
Service  of  the  Methodists  in  North  America,  with  other 
Occasional  Services;  London:  Printed  in  the  year  1784," 
which  contained  a  form  of  public  prayer,  "The  Form  and 
Manner  of  Making  and  Ordaining  of  Superintendents,  Eld- 
ers, and  Deacons,"  and  "The  Articles  of  Religion." 
Thus  the  three-fold  ministry  and  the  organization  itself 
were  evidently  intended  to  be  permanent.  Else  these  pro- 
visions for  their  perpetuity  had  been  irrelevant  and  unneces- 
sary. This  Episcopal  regimen  was  expressly  justified  on  the 
ground  that  in  America  there  were  now  neifher  bishops  nor 
parish  ministers ;  that  if  the  English  bishops  could  at  last  be 
induced  to  ordain  for  the  Methodists  of  America,  "they 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Efiscofal  Methodism.  187 


would  likewise  expect  to  govern  them,  and  how  grievously 
would  this  entangle  us;  "  and  that,  since  "our  American 
brethren  are  now  totally  disentangled  both  from  the  State  and 
from  the  English  hierarchy,  we  dare  not  entangle  them  again 
either  with  the  one  or  the  other."  *  "  No  extant  forensic  ar- 
gument" says  Stevens,  "founded  upon  documentary  evi- 
dence, is  stronger  than  would  be  a  right  collocation  of  the 
evidence  which  sustains  the  claim  of  American  Methodists 
respecting  this  question,  .  .  .  Presented  in  their  right 
series  they  become  absolutely  decisive,  and  must  conclude 
the  controversy  with  all  candid  minds. "f 

A  comprehensive  survey  will  sufficiently  explain  Wesley's 
failure  to  provide,  in  this  Independent  Episcopal  Church, 
for  a  governing  body  such  as  some  years  afterward  the 
General  Conference  became.  Unfortunately  the  survey  has 
hitherto  been  made,  either  by  English  writers  who  encoun- 
tered on  one  side  of  the  Atlantic  the  anomaly  of  a  Confer- 
ence, or  supreme  ecclesiastical  synod,  without  an  ordained 
ministry,  or  by  American  writers  who,  on  this  side  the 
Atlantic,  encountered  the  difficulties  of  the  contrary  anom- 
aly of  a  Church  with  an  ordained  ministry  in  three  orders, 
for  which  no  controlling  Conference  was  provided.  The 
writer  of  these  lines  trusts  he  may  be  pardoned  for  suggest- 
ing that  after  a  familiar  and  extensive  acquaintance  with  the 
literature  of  the  question  in  both  England  and  America,  he 
has  perused  no  author  who  has  generaUzed  his  solution  of 
the  manifest  difficulties  involved,  from  the  combined  ele- 
ments afforded  equally  by  the  English  and  the  American 
constitutions.  Was  Wesley  responsible  for  this  fractional 
or  truncated  organization  in  either  case?    Let  us  see. 

The  evidence  is  conclusive  that  nothing  lay  nearer  Wes- 
ley's heart  than  the  continued  union  of  Methodists  through- 
out the  world  after  his  decease.  He  did  not  intend  the  sep- 
aration of  the  American  and  English  Methodists  into  two 

*  Wesley's  Circular  Letter,  presented  by  Dr.  Coke  to  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference as  the  basis  of  its  action.  See  above,  pp.  174,  175. 
tHist.  of  Meth.,  II.  217. 


i88  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


communions,  one  under  the  government  of  Bishops  and  the 
other  under  that  of  the  Conference.  Among  the  first  regu- 
lations adopted  by  the  Christmas  Conference  was  this : 

During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his 
sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in  matters  belonging  to  Church  government  to 
obey  his  commands.  And  we  do  engage,  after  his  death,  to  do  everything 
that  we  judge  consistent  with  the  cause  of  religion  in  America  and  the  po- 
litical interests  of  these  States,  to  preserve  and  promote  our  union  with  the 
Methodists  in  Europe.* 

This  stood  until  1787.  Mr.  Wesley  regarded  this  as  no 
empty  compliment.  September  6,  1786,  he  wrote  to  Dr. 
Coke,  "  I  desire  that  you  would  appoint  a  General  Confer- 
ence of  our  preachers  in  the  United  States  to  meet  at  Balti- 
more on  May  i,  1787,  and  that  Mr.  Whatcoat  maybe  appoint- 
ed Superintendent  with  Mr.  Asbury."  Such  a  General  Con- 
ference did  not  assemble,^and  Mr.  Whatcoat  did  not  become 
a  Superintendent  until  thirteen  years  later  (1800)  when  he 
was  chosen  by  the  free  suffrages  of  the  American  itinerants. 
On  the  contrary,  the  resolution  of  submission  to  Mr.  Wes- 
ley was  expunged,  much  to  his  grief.  It  is  enough  here  to 
cite  from  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  to  Whatcoat  sufficient  proof 
of  his  desire  for  continued  union  between  the  American  and 
English  Methodists. 

It  was  not  well  judged  of  Brother  Asbury  [said  he]  to  sufier,  much  less 
indirectly  encourage,  the  foolish  step  in  the  last  Conference.  Every 
preacher  present  ought,  both  in  duty  and  in  prudence,  to  have  said,  "  Broth- 
er Asbury,  Mr.  Wesley  is  your  father,  consequently  ours."  Candor  will 
affirm  this  in  the  face  of  the  world.  It  is  highly  probable  that  disallowing 
me  will,  as  soon  as  my  head  is  laid,  occasion  a  total  breach  between  the  Eng- 
lish and  American  Methodists.  They  will  naturally  say,  "  If  they  can  do 
without  us,  we  can  do  without  them." 

Thus,  it  is  seen,  the  Conference,  under  Asbury's  suffer- 
ance, exercised  powers  which  Wesley  had  never  intended 
should  fall  within  its  province.  The  beginning  of  this  was 
in  his  own  election  to  the  Superintendency ;  its  continuation 
in  the  rejection  of  Whatcoat,  as  Wesley's  nominee,  for  the 
same  office. 

Reverting  to  the  Deed  of  Declaration,  we  find  the  follow- 

*  Discipline  of  1784,  p.  3;  Dr.  Emory's  Hist,  of  Discipline  pp.  26,  27. 


Wesley 's  Final  Settlement  of  jEpiscopal  Methodism.  189 


ing  provision  for  the  extension  of  the  supervision  and  pow- 
ers of  the  Conference  beyond  the  limits  of  Great  Britain: 

Thirteenth.  And  for  the  convenience  of  the  chapels  and  premises  al- 
ready, or  which  may  hereafter  be  given  or  conveyed  upon  the  trusts  afore- 
said, situate  in  Ireland  or  other  farts  out  of  the  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain,  the 
Conference  shall  and  may,  when  and  as  often  as  it  shall  seem  expedient, 
but  not  otherwise,  appoint  and  delegate  any  member  or  members  of  the 
Conference  with  all  or  any  of  the  powers,  privileges,  and  advantages,  herein 
before  contained  or  vested  in  the  Conference;  and  all  and  every  the  acts, 
admissions,  expulsions,  and  appointments  whatsoever  of  such  member  or 
members  of  the  Conference,  so  appointed  and  delegated  as  aforesaid,  the 
same  being  put  into  writing  and  signed  by  such  delegate  or  delegates,  and 
entered  into  the  Journals  or  Minutes  of  the  Conference,  and  subscribed  as 
after  mentioned,  shall  be  deemed,  taken,  and  be  the  acts,  admissions,  expul- 
sions, and  appointments  of  the  Conference  to  all  intents,  constructions,  and 
purposes  whatsoever,  from  the  respective  times  when  the  same  shall  be 
done  by  such  delegate  or  delegates,  notwithstanding  anything  herein  con-  • 
tained  to  the  contrary.* 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Dr.  Coke  presided  in  the  first 
Irish  Conference  of  1782,  and,  until  he  prepared  to  visit 
India,  on  the  voyage  to  which  he  died,  he  almost  invariably 
presided  in  Ireland,  "  thus  filling  the  presidential  chair  with 
honor,  approbation,  and  great  utility  for  nearly  thirty  years."  t 
After  Mr.  Wesley's  death  this  appointment  was  made  by 
virtue  of  the  above-cited  regulation  incorporated  in  the 
Deed  of  Declaration.  In  1805  the  Irish  Conference,  for  ex- 
ample, took  this  action:  "Your  readiness  of  mind  to  com- 
ply with  our  request,  so  often  made,  for  our  greatly  respected 
friend  and  brother,  Dr.  Coke,  convinces  us  still  more  and 
more  of  your  affection  toward  us.  We  do,  therefore,  with 
confidence,  unanimously  request  that  he  may  be  appointed 
our  president  the  ensuing  year."  To  which  the  English 
Conference  responded:  "In  compliance  with  your  request, 
we  appoint  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke  to  be  the  president  of  the  next 
Irish  Conference,  to  be  held  in  Dublin  on  the  first  Friday 
in  July,  1806." 

We  now  begin  to  see  how  Wesley  expected  to  maintain  a 
bond  of  union  among  the  Methodists  throughout  the  world 
after  his  decease.    It  is  intelligible  why,  in  organizing  Amer- 


*See  above,  pp.  143,  144,  for  decisive  evidence,    j  Drew,  Life  of  Coke,  p.  51. 


ipo  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784.. 


ican  Methodism  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  he  did  not  provide 
for  a  supreme  General  Conference,  since  he  had  deliber- 
ately adopted  measures  by  which  the  authority  of  the  British 
Conference  might  be  extended  to  any  part  of  the  world.  If 
the  central  Conference  extended  in  its  oversight  and  govern- 
ment to  America,  so  that  the  Americans  were  not  really 
without  Conference  government,  it  is  just  as  true  that  the 
English  Methodists  were  not  left  without  an  ordained  min- 
istry, and  that  in  three  orders.  If  any  question  be  raised 
about  Coke's  being  a  Bishop  among  the  Wesleyans — 
though  President  Pawson,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  doubt  it 
in  1793 — there  can  be  none  about  Alexander  Mather's  po- 
sition, thrice  ordained  by  Wesley,  and  himself  the  second 
President  of  the  Conference,  in  1792.  The  reader  will  now 
perceive  why  large  space  in  this  history  has  been  devoted  to 
Wesley's  ordinations  for  England  and  Scotland,  subsequent 
to  his  ordination  of  Coke,  Whatcoat,  and  Vasey.  We  see 
why  Charles  Wesley  charged,  and  John  Wesley  did  not 
deny,  that  Dr.  Coke's  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Amer- 
ica was  designed  to  beget  a  like  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  England.  Biographer  after  biographer  and  his- 
torian after  historian  have  treated  this  language  as  the  vain 
ravings  of  an  outraged  opponent.  When  light  is  thrown 
into  it  from  all  directions — from  the  transactions  in  England 
and  from  the  events  in  America — it  is  seen  to  be  a  sober 
representation  of  John  Wesley's  intentions,  or,  at  least,  of 
the  results,  which  he  believed  would  naturally,  if  not  necessa- 
rily, flow  from  his  actions  after  his  decease:  hence  Pawson' s 
letter;  hence  the  Litchfield  meeting,  and  the  deliberate  pro- 
posals of  Coke,  Mather,  Pawson,  Adam  Clarke,  Henry 
Moore,  Samuel  Bradburn,  Rogers  and  Taylor.  Until  we 
bring  together  the  American  and  English  elements  of  the 
situation,  it  seems  inexpHcable  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America  entered  on  its  great  career  with  an  or- 
dained ministry  but  without  a  General  Conference,  and  that 
English  Methodism,  on  the  death  of  Wesley,  began  with 
fully  organized  Conference  government,  but  without  an  or- 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  191 


dained  ministry,  the  imposition  of  hands  by  the  President, 
Ex-president,  and  Secretary  beginning  as  late  as  1834. 
American  Methodism,  in  the  year  after  Wesley's  death 
(1792)  secured  to  itself  the  first  General  Conference  prop- 
erly so  called.  Such  full  and  final  assertion  of  independence 
was  hardly  possible  at  any  earlier  date.  As  long  as  Mr. 
Wesley  lived  the  forms  of  union  between  the  American  and 
British  Methodists  must  be  kept  up.  He  died  in  1791.  In 
1792  the  first  Quadrennial  General  Conference  assembled, 
and  the  organization  of  this  supreme  legislative  tribunal  is 
the  final  announcement  by  the  Americans  of  their  irrevoca- 
ble independence.  The  government  of  American  Episco- 
pal Methodism  was  thus  completed  ;  but  English  Methodism 
has  continued  almost  to  this  day,  in  the  eyes  of  some  of  its 
most  cultured  ministers  and  members,  a  hybrid  somewhat,  a 
cross  between  a  Church  and  a  Society.  \ 
At  that  memorable  first  interview  between  Coke  and  As 
bury  at  Barratt's  Chapel,  in  Delaware,  November  14,  1784 
Asbury  by  his  proposal  to  call  a  Conference,  cordially  sec- 
onded by  the  American  preachers  present,  ultimately  secured 
independence  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  English  Methodism,  and 
self-government  to  American  Methodism.  Mr.  Wesley  did 
not  include  in  his  scheme  the  assembling  of  the  American 
itinerants  to  pass  judgment  upon  his  proposals  and  plans, 
and  to  accept  the  one  and  elect  the  other  of  his  appointees 
to  the  general  superintendency.  Wesley  never  intended  to 
originate  an  American  General  Conference.  Upon  this  fact 
proper  historical  emphasis  has  not,  as  yet,  been  placed.  It 
was  the  germ  of  Conference  authority,  manifesting  itself  in 
the  Annual  Conferences  in  America,  that  gradually  sepa- 
rated the  American  from  the  English  Methodists ;  that  sub- 
sequently declined  to  elect  Whatcoat  and  Garrettson,  upon 
Mr.  Wesley's  nomination,  to  the  episcopate;  and  that  omit- 
ted Mr.  Wesley's  name  from  the  Minutes.  It  was  not  the 
Christmas  Conference,  however,  by  its  unforeseen  organiza- 
tion, or  by  any  subsequent  action,  that  separated  these  Meth- 
odists of  North  America  from  any  shadow  of  churchly  au- 


192 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


thority  which  the  Church  of  England  may  have  possessed 
in  the  United  States  after  the  revolutionary  war:  this  frag- 
ile bond,  if  it  did  not  fall  away  of  itself,  Mr.  Wesley  him- 
self unhesitatingly  severed.  In  a  word,  it  was  the  unex- 
pected organization  of  the  Christmas  Conference — which 
grew  out  of  the  stand  which  Mr.  Asbury  took  in  the  inter- 
view at  Barratt's  Chapel,  and  whose  powers  and  authority 
he  recognized  as  capable  of  being  set  over  against  those  of 
Mr.  Wesley  alone — that  gave  the  American  Church  auton- 
omy; i.  e.,  independence  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Enghsh 
Conference.  Dr.  Coke  was  always  uneasy  .at_  this  pointj 
not  about  the  ordination — he  came  to  make  a  man  already 
superintendent  a  bishop,  in  fact  if  not  in  name;  not  about 
the  organization  of  an  Episcopal  Church  independent  of, 
and  indeed  a  successor  to,  the  Church  of  England,  then 
practically  defunct  in  the  States;  but  about  the  autonomy, 
the  independence  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  home  Conference. 
This  Conference  had  not  entered  into  Wesley's  platform 
or  Coke's.  In  Asbury's  platform,  however,  it  was  the  chief 
plank.  This  sufficiently  explains  Coke's  language  in  his 
letter  to  Bishop  White,  in  1791,  that  he  probably  went  fur- 
ther in  the  organization  of  the  American  Church  than  Mr. 
Wesley  intended. 

All  the  indications  are  that  Mr.  Wesley  meant  his  super- 
intendents to  ordain  whom  they  chose,  and  to  be  the  sole  ec- 
clesiastical rulers,  under  himself,  of  both  preachers  and  peo- 
ple in  America.  They  were  not  to  wait  on  the  election  of  a 
Conference  before  they  conferred  deacon's  or  elder's  or- 
ders, for  no  executive  or  legislative  assembly  of  preachers 
had  been  provided  for  by  Mr.  Wesley;  and  such  was  not  the 
habit  of  the  English  Bishops  or  the  law  of  the  English 
Church.  He,  in  turn,  expected  to  name  the  superintend- 
ents with  as  much  freedom  as  an  English  premier  issues  his 
congi  (Telire  to  fill  the  vacancies  in  the  sees  of  the  Church 
of  England.  As  the  originator  of  the  United  Societies,  he 
had  been  the  fountain  of  authority,  both  legislative  and  ex- 
ecutive, in  England  and,  up  to  this  time,  in  America.  He 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  193 

therefore  intended  that  Coke  and  Asbury  should  be  the 
general  superintendents  of  the  American  work  as  himself 
was  of  the  EngHsh,  making  regulations  and  enforcing  them, 
distributing  the  preachers  according  to  their  own  judgment, 
and  having  entire  and  unquestioned  oversight,  zvith  this  ex- 
ception: Coke  and  Asbury  were  to  continue  subject  to  Mr. 
Wesley's  authority,  he  not  unnaturally  considering  himself 
as  the  proper  head  of  the  whole  Methodist  Connection  in 
Europe  and  America,  Mr.  Wesley  took  it  upon  himself, 
assisted  by  other  presbyters,  solemnly  to  ordain,  and  to  ac- 
credit with  the  authority  to  ordain  others,  a  man  who  was 
already  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England.  He  did  not 
call  this  man  a  bishop,  but  by  the  equivalent  title  of  Super- 
intendent; neither  did  he  call  himself  the  senior  bishop,  or 
the  archbishop,  of  Methodism;  yet  that  he  esteemed  himself 
a  scriptural  bishop  and  by  appointment  of  Divine  Provi- 
dence the  patriarch  and  apostle  of  Methodism  throughout 
the  world  is  not  open  to  question.  In  this  conjoint  episco- 
pal and  patriarchal  capacity  he  regarded  himself  as  compe- 
tent to  the  government,  even  of  the  two  men  whom  he  con- 
stituted General  Superintendents  of  American  Methodism. 
If  Asbury  had  accepted  on  these  conditions,  there  would 
have  been  no  independent  American  Conference,  but  cer- 
tainly a  Church,  for  Mr.  Wesley  intended  complete  inde- 
pendency of  any  jurisdiction  which  the  Church  of  England 
may  have  been  supposed  still  to  exercise  in  America.  It 
would  have  been  an  Episcopal  Church  of  the  most  ultra 
type,  governed  wholly  by  bishops,  and  destitute  of  a  Gen- 
eral Conference  or  legislature  of  any  sort,  except  as  the 
British  Conference  stood  in  this  relation  to  the  American 
work.  The  bishops  would  have  been  subject  to  Mr.  Wes- 
ley during  his  life,  but  in  America  would  have  governed  as 
he  did  in  England.  They  would  have  called  the  preachers 
together  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  convenient  places,  in 
an  Annual  Conference  capacity — the  capacity  in  which  the 
British  Conference  really  met  during  Mr.  Wesley's  life — to 
discuss  local  matters,  and  to  receive  their  appointments;  but 
13 


194 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear :  178^. 


all  legislative  and  executive  powers  would  have  been  resi- 
dent in  the  bishops  themselves,  subject  to  Mr.  Wesley  dur- 
ing his  life,  and  to  the  British  Conference  after  his  decease. 
This  was  Mr.  Wesley's  plan;  and  it  is  due  to  the  sagacity 
and  far-sighted  statesmanship  of  Asbury,  in  declining  to  ac- 
cept office  on  such  terms,  that  a  General  Conference — first 
general  in  fact,  and  afterward  delegated  and  limited — was 
subsequently  incorporated  in  the  fundamental  organization 
of  American  Episcopal  Methodism.  Had  the  British  Con- 
ference, after  Mr.  Wesley's  death,  assumed  the  same  atti- 
tude toward  the  episcopacy  of  Coke  and  Asbury  in  America 
that  it  did  toward  that  of  Coke  and  Mather  in  England,  and 
had  the  American  Methodists  submitted  to  the  authority  of 
the  home  Conference,  Episcopal  Methodism,  answering  to 
Wesley's  own  design,  would  have  become  extinct  in  the 
world.  The  Episcopacy  would  have  been  decapitated  or 
ignored,  and  the  American  General  Conference  would  not 
have  come  into  existence.  Thus  Asbury  opposed  and  over- 
ruled Wesley  in  America,  but  it  proved  the  condition  of  car- 
rying the  Founder's  own  plan  into  successful  operation  in 
the  United  States  at  least,  despite  the  comparative  failure  in 
England,  and  that  on  a  scale  so  magnificent  that  Wesley  in 
his  most  optimistic  mood  never  dreamed  of  such  Episcopal 
Churches  as  now  exist  among  the  Methodists  of  America. 

IV.  The  Christmas  Conference  and  Its  Work. 
On  the  17th  of  December,  Coke  and  Asbury,  having  com- 
pleted their  evangelistic  itineraries,  arrived  under  the  roof  of 
Mr.  Gough,  at  Perry  Hall,  about  fifteen  miles  from  Baltimore. 
William  Black,  a  preacher  from  Nova  Scotia,  and  Vasey 
were  also  of  the  company.  "  Here,"  writes  Coke,  "  I  have 
a  noble  room  to  myself,  where  Mr.  Asbury  and  I  may,  in 
the  course  of  a  week,  mature  everything  for  the  Confer- 
ence." Whatcoat  joined  them  on  the  19th,  and  the  next 
day  they  began  the  revision  of  "the  Rules  and  Minutes." 
Asbury  observed  Friday,  November  26,  as  a  day  of  fasting 
and  prayer,  to  know  "  the  will  of  God  in  the  matter  that  is 


Wesley  's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  195 


shortly  to  come  before  our  Conference.  The  preachers  and 
people,"  he  adds,  "  seem  to  be  much  pleased  with  the  pro- 
jected plan;  I  myself  am  led  to  think  it  is  of  the  Lord.  I 
am  not  tickled  with  the  honor  to  be  gained — I  see  danger  in 
the  way.  My  soul  waits  upon  God.  O  that  he  may  lead 
us  in  the  way  we  should  go !  Part  of  my  time  is,  and  must 
necessarily  be,  taken  up  with  preparing  for  the  Confer- 
ence." * 

The  Christmas  Conference  began  its  session  on  Friday, 
December  24,  at  10  a.m.  in  Lovely  Lane  chapel,  Baltimore. 
Whatcoat  says,  "On  the  24th  we  rode  to  Baltimore;  at 
10  o'clock  we  began  our  Conference."  Coke's  entry  is 
"  On  Christmas  eve  we  opened  our  Conference."  Asbury 
writes  that  they  "  continued  at  Perry  Hall  until  Friday  the 
twenty-fourth.  We  then  rode  to  Baltimore,  where  we  met 
a  few  preachers."  Coke's  certificate  of  Asbury' s  ordination 
also  shows  that  he  was  ordained  deacon  Saturday,  Decem- 
ber 25.  The  joint  testimony  of  Coke,  Asbury,  and  What- 
coat is  thus  decisive  of  the  date.  The  first  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  framed  at  this  Conference, 
bears,  however,  this  title:  "Minutes  of  several  Conversa- 
tions between  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  the  Rev. 
Francis  Asbury,  and  others,  at  a  Conference,  begun  in  Bal- 
timore in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday  the  27th  of 
December,  in  the  year  1784.  Composing  a  Form  of  Disci- 
pline for  the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  other  Members  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America."!  The  har- 
mony of  the  two  dates  is  probably  found  in  the  order  of  pro- 
ceedings. It  is  likely  that  the  consideration  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's circular  letter,  the  settlement  of  the  organization  and 
title  of  the  new  Church,  and  the  determination  with  regard 
to  Mr.  Asbury's  ordination,  at  least,  occupied  the  time  on 
Friday  and  Saturday.  On  Monday  morning,  possibly  with 
a  fuller  Conference,  the  coversations  began  touching  the  re- 
vision of  discipline,  which  continued  throughout  the  week. 
No  official  records  of  the  Christmas  Conference  are  extant, 


♦Journal,  I.  377.    ■{•  Title-page  of  the  first  Discipline,  now  before  me. 


196 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784.. 


save  the  notice  in  the  Minutes  of  1785  (as  reprinted  in  1795) 
and  the  published  Discipline.  The  original  pamphlet  Min- 
utes of  1785,  now  before  me,  do  not  contain  the  preliminary 
notice  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  inserted  in  the  Minutes 
for  that  year  as  republished  in  1 795 .   Asbury 's  notice  follows : 

It  was  agreed  to  form  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  have 
superintendents,  elders,  and  deacons.  When  the  Conference  was  seated, 
Dr.  Coke  and  myself  were  unanimously  elected  to  the  superintendence  of 
the  Church,  and  my  ordination  followed,  after  being  previously  ordained 
deacon  and  elder,  as  by  the  following  certificate  may  be  seen: 

Knovj  all  men  by  these  presents.  That  I,  Thomas  Coke,  Doctor  of  Civil 
Law;  late  of  Jesus  College,  in  the  university  of  Oxford,  Presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  Superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America;  under  the  protection  of  Almighty  God,  and  with  a  single  eye 
to  his  glory ;  by  the  imposition  of  my  hands,  and  prayer,  (being  assisted  by 
two  ordained  elders,)  did  on  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  this  month,  December, 
set  apart  Francis  Asbury  for  the  office  of  a  deacon  in  the  aforesaid  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  And  also  the  twenty-sixth  day  of  the  said  month, 
did  by  the  imposition  of  my  hands,  and  prayer,  (being  assisted  by  the  said 
elders,)  set  apart  the  said  Francis  Asbury  for  the  office  of  elder  in  the  said 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And  on  this  twenty-seventh  day  of  the  said 
month,  being  the  day  of  the  date  hereof,  have,  by  the  imposition  of  my 
hands,  and  prayer,  (being  assisted  by  the  said  elders,)  set  apart  the  said 
Francis  Asbury  for  the  office  of  a  superintendent  in  the  said  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  a  man  whom  I  judge  to  be  well  qualified  for  that  great  work. 
And  I  do  hereby  recommend  him  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  as  a  fit  per- 
son to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ.  In  testimony  whereof  I  have  here- 
unto set  my  hand  and  seal  this  twenty-seventh  day  of  December,  in  the  j'ear 
of  our  Lord  1784.  Thomas  Coke. 

Twelve  elders  were  elected,  and  solemnly  set  apart  to  serve  our  societies 
in  the  United  States,  one  for  Antigua,  and  two  for  Nova  Scotia.  We  spent 
the  whole  week  in  Conference,  debating  freely,  and  determining  all  things 
by  a  majority  of  votes.  The  Doctor  preached  every  day  at  noon,  and  some 
one  of  the  other  preachers  morning  and  evening.  We  were  in  great  haste, 
and  did  much  business  in  a  little  time. 

Monday,  January  3,  1785.  The  Conference  is  risen,  and  I  have  now  a 
little  time  for  rest.f 

The  Minutes  of  1785,  as  republished  in  the  collected  edition 
of  1795,  contain  this  preliminary  notice:  "As  it  was  unani- 
mously agreed  at  this  Conference  that  circumstances  made 
it  expedient  for  us  to  become  a  separate  body,  under  the 
denomination  of  the  Methodist  Efiscopal  Church,  it  is 


tJournal,  I.  377,  378. 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Efiscofal  Methodism.  197 


necessary  that  we  should  here  assign  some  reasons  for  so 
doing."  The  circular  letter  of  Mr.  Wesley,  dated  Bristol, 
September  10,  1784,  and  directed  "to Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury, 
and  our  Brethren  in  North  America,"  is  then  cited  as  the  Mag- 
na Charta  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism.*  After  the 
letter,  this  conclusion  is  stated,  "Therefore,  at  this  Confer- 
ence we  formed  ourselves  into  an  Independent  Church:  and 
following  the  counsel  of  Mr.  John  Wesley,  who  recommended 
the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government,  we  thought  it 
best  to  become  an  Episcopal  Church,  making  the  Episcopal 
office  elective,  and  the  elected  superintendent  or  bishop 
amenable  to  the  body  of  ministers  and  preachers."  f 

In  the  first  Discipline,  framed  by  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, the  question  following  the  resolution  of  submission  to 
Mr.  Wesley,  previously  quoted  in  another  connection,  is  this : 

^ues.  3.  As  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  affairs  of  these  United  States 
have  passed  through  a  very  considerable  change  by  the  revolution,  what 
plan  of  Church  government  shall  we  hereafter  pursue?  Ans.  We  will  form 
ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  under  the  direction  of  superintendents, 
elders,  deacons,  and  helpers,  according  to  the  forms  of  ordination  annexed 
to  our  Liturgy,  and  the  Form  of  Discipline  set  forth  in  these  Minutes.  J 

Whatcoat  says  in  his  Memoirs,  already  cited,  "  We  agreed 
to  form  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  which  the  Liturgy 
(as  presented  by  the  Rev.  John  Wesley)  should  be  read,  and 
the  sacraments  be  administered  by  a  superintendent,  elders, 

*To  the  sentence  "I  have  accordingly  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr. 
Francis  Asbury  to  be  joint  Superiyitendents"  this  footnote  is  attached,  "As 
the  translators  of  our  version  of  the  Bible  have  used  the  English  word 
Bishop  instead  of  Superintendent,  it  has  been  thought  by  us,  that  it  would 
appear  more  scriptural  to  adopt  their  term  Bishop." 

•j-It  must  be  added  that  the  whole  of  this  preliminary  notice,  inserted  in 
the  collected  Minutes  of  1795,  is  absent  from  the  original  pamphlet  Minutes 
of  1785,  whose  title-page  nevertheless  reads,  "  Minutes  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  For  the  Year  1785. ' 
The  same  designation,  "  General  Conference,"  is  applied  to  the  Conferences 
of  1786  and  1787  on  the  title-pages  of  the  original  pamphlet  Minutes  for 
those  years.  By  the  kindness  of  Dr.  Charles  J.  Little,  President  of  Garrett 
Biblical  Institute,  I  have  before  me,  from  the  library  of  that  seminary,  the 
original  pamphlet  Minutes  of  1785, 1786,  1787, 1789,  1790,  1792, 1793, 1794, 1795, 
and  later  years.  I  am  thus  able  for  the  first  time  to  carry  my  researches 
back  of  Dickins's  first  collected  edition  of  the  Minutes,  published  in  1795, 
and  to  explore  the  materials  used  in  that  oldest  compilation. 

{Discipline  of  1784,  p.  3;  Emory's  Hist,  of  Discipline,  p.  27. 


198 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Year:  1784. 


and  deacons,  who  shall  be  ordained  by  a  presbytery,  using  the 
'  Episcopal  form,  as  prescribed  in  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley's 
prayer  book.  Persons  to  be  ordained  are  to  be  nominated 
by  the  superintendent,  elected  by  the  Conference,  and  or- 
dained by  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  superintendent  and 
elders;  the  superintendent  has  a  negative  voice.''''  *  He  fur- 
ther gives  us  the  most  minute  and  accurate  chronology  of  the 
session,  stating  that  Coke  and  his  presbyters  ordained  As- 
bury  deacon  on  the  second  day,  and  elder  on  Sunday,  the 
third  day;  on  Monday  Otterbein  joined  Coke,  Whatcoat, 
and  Vasey  in  his  third  ordination,  to  the  Superintendency. 
This  agrees  with  Coke's  ordination  parchment,  cited  above 
from  Asbury's  Journal:  the  settlement  of  Asbury's  position 
was  thus  regarded  of  such  importance  that  all  three  orders 
were  bestowed  upon  him  before  the  other  preachers  were 
elected  and  ordained.  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  and  Thursday 
were  occupied  with  the  revision  and  framing  of  the  Disci- 
pline and  the  election  of  preachers  to  orders.  Friday  sev- 
eral deacons  were  ordained;  Saturday,  January  i,  1785,  the 
college  matter  was  under  consideration ;  Sunday,  twelve  eld- 
ers, previously  ordained  deacons,  and  one  deacon  were  or- 
dained; "and  we  ended  our  Conference"  says  Whatcoat, 
"  in  great  peace  and  unanimity." 

The  elders  chosen  were  Freeborn  Garrettson  and  James 
O.  Cromwell,  for  Nova  Scotia,  Jeremiah  Lambert  for  An- 
tigua, and  for  the  United  States,  John  Tunnell,  William 
Gill,  LeRoy  Cole,  Nelson  Reed,  John  Haggerty,  Reuben 
Ellis,  Richard  Ivey,  Henry  Willis,  James  O'Kelly,  and 
Beverly  Allen. t  Of  the  ten  original  elders,  first  constituted 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  is  remarkable  that  no 
less  than  six — Cole,  Reed,  Ellis,  Ivey,  Willis,  and  O'Kelly 
— had  been  master  spirits  in  the  old  Southern  "regular" 
Conference,  which  had  contended  so  stoutly  for  the  sacra- 
ments among  Methodists.  Cole  and  Ellis  had  been  mem- 
bers of  the  presbytery  appointed  at  Fluvanna  in  1779,  and 
all  of  these  six  had  previously  received  ordination  from  that 

*P.2i.    Italics  his.    \  See  Coke's  Journal,  Arm.  Mag.,  Pliil.,  June,  1789,  p.  291. 


Wesley 's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  199 


presbytery.  For  renouncing  their  rights  and  patiently  wait- 
ing, they  had  now  their  reward  in  being  numbered  among 
the  elders  first  ordained  by  Superintendents  Coke  and  As- 
bury.  John  Dickins — another  able  Fluvanna  leader — Ig- 
natius Pigman,  and  Caleb  Boyer  were  elected  deacons. 
Coke  says: 

They  [the  Conference]  are  indeed  a  body  of  devoted,  disinterested  men, 
but  most  of  them  young.  The  spirit  in  which  they  conducted  themselves, 
in  choosing  the  elders,  was  most  pleasing.  I  believe  they  acted  without  be- 
ing at  all  influenced  by  friendship,  resentment,  or  prejudice,  both  in  choos- 
ing and  rejecting.  The  Lord  was  peculiarly  present  while  I  was  preaching 
my  two  pastoral  sermons. 

In  the  sermon  at  the  episcopal  ordination  of  Asbury,  he 
delivered  himself  with  all  the  might  of  a  prophet's  fire,  both 
in  denouncing  existing  evils  in  the  English  Church  and  in 
anticipating  the  unequaled  success  of  Asbury's  continental 
episcopate  : 

You  may  now  perceive  [said  hej  the  dreadful  effects  of  raising  immoral 
or  unconverted  men  to  the  government  of  the  Church.  The  baneful  influ- 
ence of  their  example  is  so  extensive  that  the  skill  and  cruelty  of  devils  can 
hardly  fabricate  a  greater  curse  than  an  irreligious  bishop.  But  thou,  O 
man  of  God,  follow  after  righteousness,  godliness,  patience,  and  meekness. 
Do  the  work  of  an  evangelist,  and  make  full  proof  of  thy  ministry,  and  thy 
God  will  open  to  thee  a  wide  door,  which  all  thy  enemies  shall  not  be  able  to 
shut.  He  -will  carry  his  Gospel  by  thee  from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  one  end  of  ike 
continent  to  another. 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Ware,  who  was  present,  bears  explicit 
testimony  to  important  points,  particularly  the  choosing  of  a 
name  for  the  new  Church : 

The  order  of  things  devised  by  him  [Wesley]  for  our  organization  as  a 
Chuch,  filled  us  with  solemn  delight.  .  .  .  We  did,  therefore,  according 
to  the  best  qf  our  knowledge,  receive  and  follow  the  advice  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
as  stated  in  our  form  of  Discipline.  After  Mr.  Wesley's  letter,  appointing 
Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  joint  superintendents  over  the  Methodists  in 
America,  had  been  read,  analyzed,  and  cordially  approved  by  the  confer- 
ence, a  question  arose  what  name  we  should  take.  I  thought  to  myself,  I 
was  content  that  we  should  call  ourselves  the  Methodist  Church,  and  so 
whispered  to  a  brother  that  sat  near  me.  But  one  proposed,  I  think  it  was 
John  Dickins,  that  we  should  call  ourselves  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  Mr.  Dickins  was,  in  the  estimation  of  his  brethren,  a  man  of  ster- 
•ling  sense  and  sterling  piety;  and  there  were  few  men  on  the  conference 
floor  heard  with  greater  deference  than  he.    The  most  of  the  preachers  had 


200  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


been  brought  up  in  what  was  called  the  Church  of  England;  and  all  being 
agreed  that  the  plan  of  general  superintendency  was  a  species  of  Episcopa- 
cy, the  motion  was  carried,  without,  I  think,  a  dissenting  voice.  There  was 
not,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  the  least  agitation  on  this  question.  Had 
the  conference  indulged  the  least  suspicion  that  the  name  they  were  about 
to  take,  would  in  the  least  degree  cross  the  views  or  feelings  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
it  would  have  been  abandoned ;  for  the  name  of  Wesley  was  inexpressibly 
dear  to  the  Christmas  Conference,  and  to  none  more  so  than  to  Asbury  and 
Coke.  After  our  organization,  we  proceeded  to  elect  a  sufficient  number  of 
elders  to  visit  the  quarterly  meetings,  and  administer  the  ordinances;  and 
this  it  was  that  gave  rise  to  the  office  of  presiding  elders  among  us.* 

In  his  letter  of  December  i,  1828,  Ware  declares  that 
"  Dr.  Coke  was  in  favor  of  taking  the  name  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church."  It  is  not  improbable  that  Dickins  proposed 
this  title  on  the  floor  of  the  Conference  at  the  suggestion  of 
Coke  and  Asbury,  and,  as  there  is  evidence  that  the  Doctor 
"  argued  "  the  point  before  the  Conference,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  the  name  was  adopted  without  dissent  or  debate,  for, 
says  Ware,  in  the  article  on  "  The  Christmas  Conference  " 
just  cited,  Dr.  Coke  "  was  the  best  speaker  in  a  small  circle, 
or  on  a  Conference  floor,  I  ever  heard."  t 

Ware  vindicates  the  fair  names  of  Coke  and  Asbury 
against  the  aspersions  of  schismatic  agitators  of  the  times  in 
which  he  wrote,  little  dreaming  that  there  would  arise  men 
who,  a  century  after  the  Christmas  Conference,  would  labor 
to  prepare  an  historical  basis  for  the  same  allegations,  de- 
liberately reiterated : 

Had  I,  at  the  close  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  been  told  that,  in  some 
future  time,  even  before  I  should  go  the  way  of  all  flesh,  men  would  arise 
calling  themselves  Methodists,  who  would  report,  and  even  put  forth  their 
most  skillful  exertions  to  make  the  world  believe  that  Asbury  and  Coke  did, 
from  sheer  ambition,  conspire  against  Mr.  Wesley,  whom  they  professed  so 
much  to  love  and  honor,  and  on  him  surreptitiously  father  a  spurious  Epis- 
copacy, and  thereby  with  falsehood  stain,  not  only  the  fame  of  the  man 
Wesley,  but  the  first  page  of  their  Discipline,  to  be  perpetuated  throughout 
all  future  generations,  I  should  have  said.  No,  surely,  that  can  never  be, 
that  from  ourselves  men  should  arise  who  could  excogitate,  or  even  retail, 
80  foul  a  slander:— that  be  far  from  them.  J 

*  Methodist  Magazine  and  Quarterly  Review;  Art.  "Christmas  Conference,"  by  Thomas 
Ware,  January  number,  1832,  p.  98. 
tp.  104. 

t  Ware's  Art.,  "The  Christmas  Conference,"  in  Meth.  Mag.  and  Quart.  Rev.,  p.  100. 


Wesley 's  Final  Settlement  of  E'pisco-pal  Methodism.  201 


In  pursuance  of  our  plan  to  gather  the  testimony  of  the 
participants  in  the  Christmas  Conference  as  to  what  the 
Conference  itself  understood  Mr.  Wesley  to  intend,  and  as 
to  what  the  body  actually  did,  and  thus,  as  far  as  possible, 
to  remedy  the  defect  arising  from  the  lack  of  a  minute 
journal  of  the  proceedings,  we  may  now  introduce  the  Rev. 
Freeborn  Garrettson.  In  a  letter  to  Rev.  A.  M'Caine,  dated 
September  29,  1826,  in  answer  to  inquiries  which  were  in- 
tended to  elicit  information  discreditable  to  Methodist  Epis- 
copacy and  to  the  origin  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
he  says: 

With  respect  to  vour  first  query,  I  am  fully  of  opinion  the  Christmas 
conference  was  authorized  by  Mr.  Wesley,  to  organize  themselves  under  an 
episcopal  form  of  church  government.  Dr.  Coke  did  receive  ordination  to 
the  superintendency  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  the 
presbyters  present,  and  had  directions  to  consecrate  Mr.  Asbury.  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's letter  in  the  discipline  satisfies  me,  and  I  have  seen  from  his  pen 
where  he  asserts  his  opinion  in  favor  of  episcopacy  as  the  best  form  of 
church  government.  .  .  .  Remember  Mr.  Wesley  speaks  of  a  moderate 
episcopacy,  in  which  I  do  most  cordially  agree. 

With  regard  to  your  second  query,  nearly  forty  years  have  passed  away, 
and  I  cannot  charge  my  memory  with  every  minutia;  however,  instructions 
•were  communicated  from  Mr.  Wesley,  and  as  we  were  all  young,  humble, 
happy,  and  sincere,  and  well  pleased  with  what  he  offered,  (would  to  God 
we  were  all  so  now,)  I  doubt  not  but  that  we  followed  his  wishes  to  a 
punctilio. 

With  regard  to  your  third  query,  actions  speak  louder  than  words.  Dr. 
Coke  was  ordained  deacon  and  presbyter,  and  Mr.  Wesley  laid  hands  on 
him  a  third  time  for  the  general  superintendency  in  our  church,  and  direct- 
ed the  setting  apart  Asbury  for  the  same  ofiice ;  and  in  the  year  17S7,  he  ap- 
pointed two  others  [Garrettson  himself  and  Whatcoat]  to  be  set  apart  for 
the  same  office.  The  word  bishop  in  the  primitive  church  was  as  simple  as 
that  of  elder  or  presbyter,  and  perhaps  more  so ;  but  it  rose  by  slow  degrees, 
till  there  was  arch  over  arch,  till  an  infallible  monster  was  brought  forth. 
Mr.  Wesley  designed  we  should  have  a  moderate  episcopacy,  and  therefore 
he  gave  us  the  word  superintendent  instead  of  bishop;  and  the  change  of 
the  word  was  cause  of  grief  to  that  dear  old  saint,  and  so  it  was  to  me* 

Our  old  friend,  William  Watters,  first  native  American 
itinerant,  and  President  of  the  Conference  of  1778  when 
Rankin  had  returned  to  England  and  Asbury  was  a  local 
preacher  in  retirement,  says: 

*Metli.  Mag.  and  Quart.  Rev.,  July,  1830,  pp.  340,  341. 


202 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


We  formed  ourselves  into  a  separate  Church.  This  change  was  pro- 
posed to  us  by  Mr.  Wesley  after  we  had  craved  his  advice  on  the  subject, 
but  could  not  take  effect  until  adopted  by  us;  which  was  done  in  a  deliber- 
ate, formal  manner,  at  a  Conference  called  for  that  purpose,  in  which  there 
was  not  one  dissenting  voice.  Every  one,  of  any  discernment,  must  see 
from  Mr.  Wesley's  Circular  Letter  on  this  occasion,  as  well  as  from  every 
part  of  our  mode  of  Church  government,  that  we  openly  and  avowedly  de- 
clared ourselves  Episcopalians,  though  the  doctor  and  Mr.  Asbury  were 
called  Superintendents.* 

William  Phoebus,  another  member  of  the  Conference, 
deposes  as  follows: 

We  assembled  at  the  city  of  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  and 
received  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  with  his  testimonials  from  the  greatest  man 
to  us  in  the  world.  He  proceeded  to  form  the  first  Church  that  ever  was 
organized  under  a  pure  republican  government,  and  the  first  that  was  ever 
formed  in  this  happy  part  of  the  world.  In  the  year  of  our  Lord  1785,  and 
in  the  ninth  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States,  on  the  first  day 
of  January,  we  thought  it  not  robbery  to  call  our  society  a  Church,  having 
in  it,  and  of  it,  several  presbyters  and  a  President."]- 

Dr.  Coke,  in  his  sermon  at  the  third  ordination  of  Mr. 

Asbury,  already  quoted,  says  that  Mr.  Wesley,  "  after  long 
deliberation  saw  it  his  duty  to  form  his  Society  in  America 
into  an  independent  Church;  but  he  loved  the  most  excel- 
lent liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England,  he  loved  its  rites  and 
ceremonies,  and  therefore  adopted  them  in  most  instances 
for  the  present  case."  The  Minutes,  or  Discipline,  of  1786 
were  also  printed  in  England,  as  indicated  in  the  subjoined 
extract  from  Stevens.  By  July,  1785,  Coke  was  with  Wes- 
ley at  the  British  Conference. 

Coke  also  took  to  England  the  American  Minutes,  and  they  were  print- 
ed on  a  press  which  Wesley  used,  and  under  his  own  eye.  The  Baltimore 
proceedings  were  therefore  known  to  Wesley,  but  we  hear  of  no  remon- 
strance from  him.  They  soon  became  known,  by  the  Minutes,  to  the  pub- 
lic; and  when  Coke  was  attacked  publicly  for  what  he  had  done,  he  replied, 
as  we  have  seen,  through  the  press,  that  "he  had  done  nothing  but  under 
the  direction  of  Mr.  Wesley."    Wesley  never  denied  it.  J 

Nearly  four  years  elapsed  after  the  organization  of  the 
Church  with  the  adjective  "Episcopal"  in  its  title,  and 
some  two  or  three  years  after  the  publication  on  Wesley's 


♦Autobiography,  p.  104.  I  See  Myles,  Chron.  Hist,  of  Methodists,  p.  165. 
JStevens,  Hist.  Meth.,  II.  227;  cf.  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  191. 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodisin.  203 


press  of  the  Minutes  of  1786,  before  Wesley  rebuked  Asbury 
(September  20,  1788,  is  the  date  of  Wesley's  famous  and 
oft-quoted  letter)  for  permitting  himself  to  be  personally 
described  and  addressed  as  "  bishop." 

Finally  in  1789,  there  was  inserted  in  the  Discipline  for 
the  first  time,  "  Sec.  3.  On  the  Nature  and  Constitution  of 
our  Church,"  of  which  the  concluding  paragraph  reads  as 
follows  : 

For  these  reasons  we  have  thought  it  our  duty  to  form  ourselves  into  an 
independent  church.  And  as  the  most  excellent  mode  of  church  govern- 
ment, according  to  our  maturest  judgment,  is  that  of  a  moderate  episcopacy^ 
and  as  we  are  persuaded  that  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops  from 
the  apostles  can  be  proved  neither  from  Scripture  nor  antiquity,  we  there- 
fore have  constituted  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  bishops,  elders,  deacons,  and  preachers,  according  to  the  forms  of  or- 
dination annexed  to  our  Prayer-book,  and  the  regulations  laid  down  in  this 
Form  of  Discipline. 

Under  the  following  section,  the  first  question  is  "What 
is  the  proper  origin  of  the  Episcopal  authority  in  our 
Church?  "  and  the  answer  is: 

In  the  year  1784  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  who,  under  God,  has  been  the 
father  of  the  great  revival  of  religion  now  extending  over  the  earth  by  the 
means  of  the  Methodists,  determined,  at  the  intercession  of  multitudes  of 
his  spiritual  children  on  this  continent,  to  ordain  ministers  for  America,  and 
for  this  purpose  sent  over  three  regularly-ordained  clergy;  but  preferring 
the  Episcopal  mode  of  church  government  to  any  other,  he  solemnly  set 
apart,  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands  and  prayer,  one  of  them,  namely, 
Thomas  Coke,  doctor  of  civil  law,  late  of  Jesus  College,  in  the  University  of 
Oxford,  for  the  episcopal  office;  and  having  delivered  to  him  letters  of  epis- 
copal orders,  commissioned  and  directed  him  to  set  apart  Francis  Asbury, 
then  general  assistant  of  the  Methodist  Society  in  America,  for  the  same 
Episcopal  office,  he,  the  said  Francis  Asbury,  being  first  ordained  deacon 
and  elder.  In  consequence  of  which,  the  said  Francis  Asburv  was  solemnly 
set  apart  for  the  said  Episcopal  office  by  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  the 
hands  of  the  said  Thomas  Coke,  other  regularly-ordained  ministers  assisting 
in  the  sacred  ceremony.  At  which  time  the  General  Conference  held  at 
Baltimore  did  unanimously  receive  the  said  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  As- 
bury as  their  bishops,  being  fully  satisfied  of  the  validity  of  their  Episcopal 
ordination.* 


•Discipline  of  17S9,  pp.  3,  4.  The  Disciplines  of  1790  and  1791  contain  the  same  language 
unaltered:  no  change  in  the  form  of  statement  was  made  until  1702.  See  also  Emory's  Ilist. 
of  Discipline,  ed.  1844,  pp.  93,  94. 


204 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear :  1784.. 


This  corresponds  with  the  sentiments  of  Bishops  Coke 
and  Asbury  expressed  in  their  Notes  on  the  Disciphne,  pre- 
pared by  request  of  the  General  Conference  of  1796,  and 
incorporated  in  the  "Tenth  Edition,"  published  in  1798, 
and  further  sanctioned  by  the  General  Conference  of  1800. 
In  Section  I,  "Of  the  Origin  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  "  these  first  Bishops  say: 

The  late  Rev.  John  Wesley  recommended  the  episcopal  form  to  his  so- 
cieties in  America;  and  the  General  Conference,  which  is  the  chief  synod 
of  our  church,  unanimously  accepted  of  it.  Mr.  Wesley  did  more.  He  first 
consecrated  one  for  the  office  of  a  bishop,  that  our  episcopacy  might  descend 
from  himself.  The  General  Conference  unanimously  accepted  of  the  per- 
son so  consecrated,  as  well  as  of  Francis  Asbury,  who  had  for  many  years 
exercised  every  branch  of  the  episcopal  office,  excepting  that  of  ordination. 
Now,  the  idea  of  an  apostolic  succession  being  exploded,  it  follows,  that  the 
Methodist  Church  has  everything  which  is  Scriptural  and  essential  to  justify 
its  episcopacy.  Is  the  unanimous  approbation  of  the  chief  synod  of  a  church 
necessary.'  This  it  has  had.  Is  the  ready  compliance  of  the  members  of 
the  church  with  its  decision,  in  this  respect,  necessary.'  This  it  has  had, 
and  continues  to  have.  Is  it  highly  expedient,  that  the  fountain  of  the  epis- 
copacy should  be  respectable.'  This  has  been  the  case.  The  most  respect- 
able divine  since  the  primitive  ages,  if  not  since  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
was  Mr.  Wesley. 

Under  Section  IV.  "  Of  the  Election  and  Consecration  of 
Bishops  and  of  their  duty,"  Coke  and  Asbury  declare: 

In  considei-ing  the  present  subject,  we  must  observe,  that  nothing  has 
been  introduced  into  Methodism  by  the  present  episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment, which  was  not  before  fully  exercised  by  Mr.  Wesley.  He  presided  in 
the  conferences;  fixed  the  appointments  of  the  preachers  for  their  several 
circuits;  changed,  received,  or  suspended  preachers  wherever  he  judged  that 
necessity  required  it;  traveled  through  the  European  connection  at  large; 
superintended  the  spiritual  and  temporal  business;  and  consecrated  two 
bishops,  Thomas  Coke  and  Alexander  Mather,  one  before  the  present  epis- 
copal plan  took  place  in  America,  and  the  other  afterward,  besides  ordaining 
elders  and  deacons.*  ^ 

The  preceding  is  a  complete  resume  of  the  evidence,  de- 
rivable from  contemporary  sources,  of  Mr.  Wesley's  inten- 
tions, of  the  understanding  of  Superintendents  Coke  and 
Asbury,  of  Presbyter  Whatcoat,  and  of  participants  in  the 
Christmas  Conference,  as  to  what  that  body  did  when  it 
organized  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.    Almost  every 


♦  Discipline,  1798,  pp.  6,  7,  40;    Emory's  Hist!  of  Dis.,  ed.  1844,  pp.282,  287. 


Wesley Final  Settlement  of  Efisco^al  Methodism .  205 

step,  from  Wesley's  ordination  of  Coke  to  the  adjournment 
of  the  Conference,  has  been  stubbornly  disputed,  and  the 
evidence  critically  sifted  by  objectors,  within  and  without 
the  limits  of  Methodism,  who  have  sought  in  one  interest  or 
another,  to  minify  or  discredit  the  results  reached  and  per- 
manently embodied  in  the  constitution  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  That  a  "moderate  episcopacy"  was 
constituted ;  that  an  Episcopal  Church  was  organized ;  that 
a  ministry  in  three  grades  or  orders  was  permanently  pro- 
vided for;  that  the  Christmas  Conference  understood  itself 
and  Mr.  Wesley;  that  the  "  ambition  "  of  Coke  and  Asbury 
did  not  lead  them  to  impose  upon  Wesley,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  on  the  American  Methodists  on  the  other,  a  "  spurious 
episcopacy,"  never  designed  by  the  Founder  or  intelligently 
accepted  by  the  Church ;  that  Wesley  himself  fully  approved, 
against  his  brother  Charles  and  other  malcontents  in  En- 
gland, what  Dr.  Coke  had  done  as  his  envoy  and  represent- 
ative: all  this  has  been  made  indubitable  by  a  patient  and 
candid  survey  of  the  extant  contemporary  records.  The  ten 
days'  work  of  this  historic  organizing  convention  has  been 
before  the  world  for  more  than  a  century  and,  for  the  ends 
aimed  at  by  its  authors,  may  challenge  comparison  with  the 
imperishable  results  achieved  by  those  unselfish  patriots, 
who  assembled  less  than  three  years  later,  and,  under  the 
presidency  of  the  Father  of  his  country,  wrought  out  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  When  it  became  evident 
that  the  eleven  states  represented  in  the  Convention  at 
Philadelphia,  in  1787,  had  unanimously  endorsed  the  Con- 
stitution, Benjamin  Franklin,  surveying  an  image  of  the  sun, 
emblazoned  on  the  back  of  the  president's  chair,  said  to 
those  about  him,  "  I  was  not  able  to  tell  whether  it  was  ris- 
ing or  setting;  now  I  know  that  it  is  the  rising  sun."  * 
Over  America's  plains  and  rivers,  mountains  and  valleys, 
when  the  Christmas  Conference  adjourned,  the  Sun  of 
righteousness  was  rising  with  healing  in  his  wings.  "Pro- 
claim liberty  throughout  all  the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants 

*  Bancroft,  Hist.  U.  S.,  Author's  Last  Revision,  VI.  367. 


2o6  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  178^. 


thereof:"  Church  and  Nation  were  now  ready  to  run  the 
race  of  the  mighty  Nineteenth  century  that  lay  all  unknown 
before  them.    The  Lord  reigneth:  let  the  earth  rejoice ! 

We  may  be  permitted  to  remind  the  reader,  in  concluding 
this  section  of  our  studies,  that  the  preceding  inquiry  is 
purely  historical.  The  writer  has  no  aspiration  in  these 
pages  to  win  the  honors  of  the  controversialist  or  polem- 
ic. He  has  not  sought  to  compose  an  essay  on  the  princi- 
ples of  Church  government.  He  has  not  even  raised  the 
question  as  to  what  Methodist  Episcopacy  ought  to  be,  or 
whether  the  Church  is  now  competent  to  improve  it.  His 
investigation  has  been  confined  to  the  single  point  of  deter- 
mining what  Methodist  Episcopacy  and  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  were  in  their  origin:  what  Mr.  Wesley  de- 
signed them  to  be  and  what  the  Christmas  Conference  ac- 
tually constituted  them.  "Whatever  view  we  take  of  the 
subject,"  concludes  Abel  Stevens,  "we  are  compelled  to 
one  conclusion :  that  Wesley  did  create  and  establish  the 
American  Methodist  episcopacy.  The  man  who  gainsays 
such  evidence  must  be  given  up  as  incorrigible.  There  can 
be  no  reasoning  with  him."*  "Episcopal"  is  the  chief 
word  in  the  title  of  the  two  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches, 
and  "  Methodist  "  is  a  qualifying  term  to  point  out  the  kind 
of  Episcopalians  we  are.  The  grammar  and  the  logic,  as 
well  as  the  history  of  our  name,  make  Episcopal  the  genus 
and  Methodist  the  species.  As  Dr.  Whedon  forcefully  said 
in  the  old  Quarterly,  we  are  neither  Methodist  Congrega- 
tional nor  Methodist  Presbyterian,  but  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches.  The  one  ground  of  the  use  of  the  term  "Epis- 
copal" in  the  name  of  our  Churches  is  generally  over- 
looked. The  word  does  not  imply  simply  that  the  govern- 
ment is  episcopal,  as  distinguished  from  presbyterial  or  con- 
gregational. Asbury  and  his  coadjutors,  and  our  early 
English  membership,  were  EpiscopaHans ;  and  history  will 
sustain  the  point  that  our  name  was  meant  to  indicate  the 
or^nization  on  scriptural  principles  of  the  first,  (and  there- 


*Hist.  of  Meth.,  II.  229. 


Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Efiscofal  Methodism.  207 


fore  at  that  time  the  one,)  Episcopal  Church  on  the  Ameri- 
can continent.  Hitherto  the  American  Methodists  had  re- 
ceived the  sacraments  from  the  EngUsh  clergy  resident  in 
the  colonies,  and  regarded  themselves  as  members  of  that 
Church.  In  1784,  when  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America  was  organized,  neither  the  English  nor  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  existed  here  in  legal  or  complete 
organic  form.  The  American  Methodists,  by  the  help  of 
Mr.  Wesley,  therefore  organized  themselves  into  an  Ameri- 
can Episcopal'  Church,  taking  the  name  and  style  already 
indicated.  They  regarded  themselves  as  the  successors  of 
the  old  Church,  then  defunct,  and  entered  upon  their  work 
accordingly.  The  Methodist  Episcopalians  still  adhered 
"  to  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England," 
and  this  historical  truth  is  fittingly  embalmed  in  the  parch- 
ment of  their  first  bishop.  American  Methodism,  according 
to  the  design  of  its  founders,  has  for  more  than  a  century 
approved  itself  as  the  great  popular  Episcopal  Church  of 
America.  "  The  Methodist  bishops  were  the  first  Protest- 
ant bishops,  and  Methodism  was  the  first  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  of  the  New  World;  and  as  Mr.  Wesley  had 
given  it  the  Anglican  articles  of  religion  (omitting  the  sev- 
enteenth, on  predestination),  and  the  liturgy,  wisely 
abridged,  it  became,  both  by  its  precedent  organization  and 
its  subsequent  numerical  importance,  the  real  successor  to 
the  Anglican  Church  in  America."  *  As  for  schism  or 
separation,  the  thought  never  so  much  as  entered  the  heads 
of  such  conscientious  Episcopalians  as  Asbury:  the  thing 
itself  was  impossible,  as  there  then  existed  in  America  no 
organized  Episcopal  Church  from  which  to  separate. t 

*Stevens,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  II.  215. 

t  For  a  thorough  discussion  of  the  topics  of  this  chapter,  even  of  subor- 
dinate details,  such  as  could  scarcely  be  introduced  in  the  pages  of  a  gener-  ' 
al  history,  see  Tigert's  "The  Maliing  of  Methodism:  Studies  in  the  Genesis 
ot  Institutions." 


CHAPTER  XII. 


FIRST  DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

THE  "  Form  of  Discipline  for  the  Ministers,  Preachers, 
and  other  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
)  in  America"  adopted  by  the  Christmas  Conference,  was 
formulated  in  one  continuous  series  of  questions  and  an- 
swers, eighty-one  in  number.  It  was  printed  in  Philadel- 
phia in  1785,  and  may  be  indifferently  referred  to  as  the 
Discipline  of  1784,  in  the  last  week  of  which  year  it  was  es- 
tablished, or  of  1785,  the  date  of  its  pubhcation.  It  was 
based  on  the  "  Large  Minutes  "  of  the  British  Conference, 
though  matter  from  the  American  Minutes  and  much  new 
legislation,  suited  to  the  changed  conditions  of  the  new 
Church,  were  incorporated.  In  Dr.  Robert  Emory's  His- 
tory of  the  Discipline*  may  be  found  an  exact  record  of  the 
differences  between  this  first  American  Methodist  Discipline 
and  the  edition  of  the  Large  Minutes  for  1789,  the  last  re- 
vision made  before  Mr.  Wesley's  death.  Any  reader  who 
may  have  been  led  to  suppose  that  American  Methodism 
was,  in  its  rules  and  regulations,  a  comparatively  inde- 
pendent development,  or  that  the  year  1784  marks  a  total 
breach  between  the  Disciplines  of  the  two  Connections,  or 
what  afterwards  became  two  distinct  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
will  be  surprised  and  gratified  to  discover  how  close  is  the 
correspondence  between  the  Discipline  of  1784  and  the 
Large  Minutes  of  1789.  But,  however  interesting  the  task  of 
tracing  some  of  the  most  familiar  language  of  our  present 
Discipline  to  its  original  enactment  by  early  English  Confer- 
ences, we  shall  have  to  content  ourselves  in  these  pages  with 
brief  notices  of  the  material  legislation  of  1784. 


(208) 


*Ed.  of  1844,  pp.  25-79. 


First  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  209 


/.  Superintendents^  Elders,  and  Deacons. 
With  regard  to  Superintendents,  Elders,  and  Deacons  the 
Christmas  Conference  passed  the  following  regulations: 

^es.  26.  What  is  the  office  of  a  superintendent?  Ans.  To  ordain  super- 
intendents, elders,  and  deacons;  to  preside  as  a  moderator  in  our  Confer- 
ences; to  fix  the  appointments  of  the  preachers  for  the  several  circuits ;  and, 
in  the  intervals  of  the  Conference,  to  change,  receive  or  suspend  preachers, 
as  necessity  may  require;  and  to  receive  appeals  from  preachers  and  peo- 
ple, and  decide  them.  N.  B.  No  person  shall  be  ordained  a  superintendent, 
elder,  or  deacon,  without  the  consent  of  the  majority  of  the  Conference, 
and  the  consent  and  imposition  of  hands  of  a  superintendent;  except  in  the 
instance  provided  for  in  the  29th  Minute. 

^es.  27.  To  whom  is  the  superintendent  amenable  for  his  conduct.' 
Ans.  To  the  Conference:  who  have  power  to  expel  him  for  improper  con- 
duct, if  th^  •  see  it  necessary. 

^ues.  26.  If  the  superintendent  ceases  from  traveling  at  large  among  the 
people,  shall  he  still  exercise  his  office  in  any  degree.'  Ans.  If  he  ceases 
from  traveling  without  the  consent  of  the  Conference,  he  shall  not  thereafter 
exercise  any  ministerial  function  whatsoever  in  our  Church. 

^es.  29.  If  by  death,  expulsion  or  otherwise,  there  be  no  superintendent 
remaining  in  our  Church,  what  shall  we  do.'  Ans.  The  Conference  shall 
elect  a  superintendent,  and  the  elders,  or  any  three  of  them,  shall  ordain 
him  according  to  our  Liturgy. 

^ues.  30.  What  is  the  office  of  an  elder.'  Ans.  To  administer  the  sacra- 
ments of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  and  to  perform  all  the  other  rites 
prescribed  by  our  Liturgy. 

^es.  31.  What  is  the  office  of  a  deacon.'  Ans.  To  baptize  in  the  absence 
of  an  elder,  to  assist  the  elder  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  to 
marry,  bury  the  dead,  and  -read  the  Liturgy  to  the  people  as  prescribed, 
except  what  relates  to  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper. 

^ues.  35.  How  are  we  to  proceed  with  those  elders  or  deacons  who  cease 
from  traveling.'  Ans.  Unless  they  have  the  permission  of  the  Conference 
declared  under  the  hand  of  a  superintendent,  they  are  on  no  account  to  ex- 
ercise any  of  the  peculiar  functions  of  those  offices  among  us.  And  if  they 
do,  they  are  to  be  expelled  immediately. 

^es.  63.  Are  there  any  further  directions  needful  for  the  preservation  of 
good  order  among  the  preachers.'  Ans.  In  the  absence  of  a  superintendent, 
a  traveling  preacher  or  three  leaders  shall  have  power  to  lodge  a  complaint 
against  any  preacher  in  their  circuit,  whether  elder,  assistant,  deacon,  or  help- 
er, before  three  neighboring  assistants;  who  shall  meet  at  an  appointed  time, 
(proper  notice  being  given  to  the  parties,)  hear,  and  decide  the  cause.  And  au- 
thority is  given  them  to  change  or  suspend  a  preacher,  if  they  see  it  necessary, 
and  to  appoint  another  in  his  place,  during  the  absence  of  the  superintendents.* 

All  of  these  regulations  concerning  ministers  and  sacra- 


*  Discipline  of  1784,  pp.  11, 13, 14,  24;  Emory's  Hist,  of  Discipline,  pp.  38-59. 
14 


2IO 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


ments  were  devised  and  enacted  at  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, there  being,  of  course,  nothing  answering  to  them  in 
the  Large  Minutes.  Rules  with  regard  to  baptism,  and  par- 
ticularly the  liberal  provision  (  Ques.  47)  which  did  not  refuse 
members  of  other  Churches  the  privileges  of  membership 
with  the  Methodists,  are  worthy  of  notice,  but  need  not  de- 
tain us  here.  The  duties  of  a  superintendent  are,  (i)  To 
ordain  men  to  the  three  grades  of  the  ministry;  (2)  to  pre- 
side in  the  Conferences;  (3)  to  fix  the  appointments;  (4) 
to  change,  receive,  and  suspend  preachers  in  the  interval  of 
the  Conference;  (4)  to  entertain  and  decide  appeals  from 
preachers  and  people;  (5)  to  exercise,  if  he  see  fit,  a  sus- 
pensive veto  not  only  upon  the  Conference  election  of  dea- 
cons and  elders,  but  also  upon  the  election  of  additional  Su- 
perintendents;  (6)  to  travel  at  large  among  the  people, 
under  penalty,  in  the  event  of  failure  so  to  do,  of  suspension 
from  all  ministerial  functions.  On  the  other  hand,  for  his 
conduct  the  Superintendent  is  amenable  to  the  Conference 
"who  have  power  to  expel  him  for  improper  conduct,  if 
they  see  it  necessary."  Thus  the  Conference  of  1784  set- 
tled once  for  all  the  great  underlying  principles  of  episco- 
pal administration  and  responsibility  as  they  have  contin- 
ued with  slight  alteration  for  one  hundred  and  ten  years. 
The  duties  of  Bishops  have  been  somewhat  changed  from 
time  to  time:  in  the  current  Discipline  [1890]  their  amenabili- 
ty to  the  Conference  is  still  defined  in  the  same  terms  origi- 
nally employed  by  the  fathers  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 
There  were  masters  of  assemblies  in  that  body,  who  well 
^  knew  what  Israel  ought  to  do  1  The  regulations  concerning 
elders  and  deacons  are  substantially  the  same  as  have  since 
been  in  continuous  operation.  The  answer  to  Question  63, 
however,  reveals  the  fact  that  class-leaders  were  distinctly 
recognized  as  an  organic  part  of  the  official  pastorate  of  the 
Church,  having  oversight  not  only  of  the  people,  but  in  a 
sense  also  of  the  preachers:  "  In  the  absence  of  a  superin- 
tendent, a  traveUng  preacher,  or  three  leaders,  shall  have 
power  to  lodge  a  complaint  against  any  preacher,"  etc.  The 


First  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  211 


spiritual  offices  of  the  Christian  ministry  for  edification  and 
discipline  were  thus  distributed  among  Superintendents,  eld- 
ers (usually  presiding  elders),  Assistants  (preachers  in 
charge),  deacons,  helpers,  and  class-leaders.  And  here 
may  be  properly  introduced  a  sketch  of  the  origin  and  rela- 
tions of  the  several  grades  of  pastoral  office  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  immediately  preceding  and  following  the 
legislation  of  1784.  This  sketch  is  taken  from  a  hitherto  un- 
published manuscript  of  the  late  Joshua  Soule  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  writer  of  these  lines.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to 
remark  that  Joshua  Soule  was  twice  elected  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (in  1820  and  1824);  that  he 
was  the  Senior  Bishop  in  1844;  and  that  he  continued  in 
that  relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  until 
his  decease  in  1867.  He  was  born  in  Maine  in  1781 ;  began 
traveling  under  the  presiding  elder  in  1798;  was  admitted  at 
New  York  in  1799;  in  1804  he  became  presiding  elder  of  the 
Maine  District;  in  1816,  Book  Agent  at  New  York;  he  was 
a  member  of  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  and  "was 
author  of  the  plan  for  a  delegated  General  Conference."* 
This  paper  of  Bishop  Soule's  is  without  date,  but  bears 
marks  of  age  and  is  written  in  the  steadier  handwriting  of 
his  earlier  years.  His  observations  are  evidently  largely  de- 
rived from  his  personal  association  with  the  fathers  of  the 
Church  and  from  his  knowledge  of  the  workings  of  the 
Methodist  system  in  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  cent- 
ury and  the  first  decade  of  this.    Mr.  Soule  says: 

The  system  adopted  by  Mr.  Wesley  for  the  execution  of  discipline  in 
America  was  Episcopal  in  its  nature.  As  he  was  (under  God)  the  Father 
of  the  Methodist  Societies  both  in  Europe  and  America,  the  members  and 
preachers  united  in  looking  up  to  him  as  such,  and  considered  him  as  pos- 
sessing all  authority  both  in  the  temporal  and  spiritual  concerns  of  the  So- 
cieties. But  as  he  could  not  personally  take  charge  of  the  Societies  in 
America,  he  appointed  some  to  act  as  General  Assistants,  in  maintaining  the 
order  and  discipline  as  contained  in  the  Minutes  of  Conference  and  his 
writings ;  to  these  were  added  Assistants,  whose  special  business  was  to  take 
the  oversight  of  the  circuit  to  which  he  was  appointed,  and  when  one,  or 


*  Bishop  Matthew  Simpson's  Cyclopxdia  of  Methodism,  p.  814. 


212 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784. 


more,  was  united  with  him  as  a  colleague,  he  was  denominated  the  Helper, 
and  to  these  may  be  added  the  Leaders,  in  their  respective  classes.  The 
Leader  had  the  duties  peculiar  to  his  office  to  discharge;  the  Helper  was 
authorized  to  attend  to  all  the  work  which  a  Leader  could  perform,  and 
M  hen  directed  by  those  higher  in  office  he  was  authorized  to  perform  duties 
which  a  Class-leader  could  not.  The  Assistant  was  fully  authorized  to  at- 
tend to  all  the  work  of  the  ministry  and  the  execution  of  every  part  of  the 
Discipline  within  his  circuit;  while  the  General  Assistant  was  authorized 
"to  attend  to  all  temporal  and  spiritual  matters  pertaining  to  the  Societies  in 
any  and  every  circuit  where  he  traveled.  This  was  the  original  order  of 
things. 

In  1784  when  these  Societies  were  organized  into  a  separate  and  distinct 
Church,  there  was  no  change  in  this  system.  Doctor  Coke  was  ordained  a 
Superintendent  by  Mr.  Wesley  and  sent  to  America  to  act  in  Mr.  Wesley's 
place,  and  [he]  consequently  vested  him  with  ample  powers  to  superintend 
and  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist  in  organizing  the  Church  and  this  he  did 
on  the  plan  recommended  by  Mr.  Wesley,  which  was  on  the  Episcopal  plan; 
consequently  no  material  change  was  made  in  the  system  first  introduced. 
An  Episcopacy  being  recommended  and  appointed  by  Mr.  Wesley,  his  rec- 
ommendation was  approved  of  and  his  appointment  confirmed  by  the  Amer- 
ican preachers ;  and,  in  organizing  the  Church,  they  admitted  of  two  orders 
in  the  ministry,  Elders  and  Deacons.  In  the  administration  of  the  discipline 
of  the  Church,  the  following  plan  was  pursued,  to  wit:  the  Bishops  were  to 
travel  at  large  through  the  Connection,  preside  in  the  Conferences,  fix  the 
appointments  of  the  preachers;  in  the  intervals  of  Conference  to  change,  re- 
ceive, and  suspend  preachers  as  necessity  requires  and  discipline  directs;  to 
perform  ordinations,  and,  in  a  word,  to  take  the  general  oversight  of  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  business  of  the  Church.  To  aid  them  in  this  work 
those  who  formerly  attended  to  the  business  which  pertained  to  the  General 
Assistants  were  appointed  to  be  ruling  or  Presiding  Elders,  each  one  having 
the  special  charge  of  a  convenient  number  of  circuits,  denominated  a  Dis- 
trict, through  which  he  was  to  travel  and  attend  to  all  the  temporal  and  spir- 
itual business  of  the  Church  within  the  several  circuits  composing  his  Dis- 
trict, and  that  the  discipline  of  the  Church  might  more  effectually  be  admin- 
istered, the  preacher,  in  general,  on  the  several  circuits  who  had  most  experi- 
ence and  was  able  to  attend  to  the  business  was  appointed  to  take  charge  of 
the  circuit  and,  as  formerly,  act  as  Assistant  to  the  Elder,  while  his  col- 
league, as  upon  the  old  plan,  was  considered  the  Helper:  these,  together 
^ith  the  Leaders,  all  united  in  carrying  the  discipline  into  effect,  so  that 
with  a  well  digested  code  of  regulations,  the  moral  discipline  of  the  Gospel 
may  be  completely  maintained  and  the  Church  preserved  pure  both  in  faith 
and  practice.  And  such  is  the  nature  of  an  Episcopal  system  of  govern- 
ment that  when  an  inferior  officer  is  deficient  in  discharging  his  duty,  the 
superior  is  fully  authorized  to  attend  to  the  business.  For  the  several  grades 
of  executive  officers,  whether  Bishops,  Presiding  Elders,  Assistant  Preach- 
ers, or  Helpers  are  each  one  authorized  to  do  all  the  business  which  is  made 
the  peculiar  business  of  the  inferior.  Hence  a  Bishop  may  not  only  preside 
in  a  General  Conference;  but  it  is  his  privilege  and  duty,  when  present,  to 


First  Dtsciplme  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  Church.  213 

preside  in  Annual  and  Quarterly  Conferences,  and  if  his  time  and  strength 
is  not  employed  in  attending  to  higher  duties,  he  is  fully  authorized  to  sit 
and  preside  on  the  trial  and  expulsion  of  private  members.  The  Presiding 
Elders  are  equally  clothed  with  executive  power  so  far  as  it  relates  to  their 
District;  the  Assistant  and  Helper  as  it  relates  to  the  circuit,  and  down  to 
the  Leader  as  it  relates  to  his  class. 

//.  The  Rise  of  the  Presiding  Eldership. 

We  may  now  a  little  more  formally  than  we  have  hitherto 
done  notice  the  origin  of  the  office  of  presiding  elder. 
This  office  is  not  explicitly  recognized  in  the  Discipline  of 
1784.  Yet  this  is  the  epoch  of  its  virtual  creation.  It  came 
with  the  first  Superintendents,  the  first  ordinations,  the  first 
formal  provision  for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
and  is,  therefore,  coeval  with  the  organization  of  the 
Church.  Thomas  Ware  has  already  told  us  how  the  ordi- 
nation of  sufficient  elders  at  the  Christmas  Conference  "  to 
visit  the  quarterly  meetings  and  administer  the  ordinances  " 
was  the  measure  which  "  gave  rise  to  the  office  of  presiding 
elder  among  us."  Bishop  Soule  tells  us  how  this  officer  has 
been  recognized  from  the  beginning  as  the  special  deputy 
and  representative  of  an  absent  Bishop,  and  how  he  stood 
in  the  same  relation  to  Assistants  which  the  General  Assist- 
ant had  formerly  occupied.  In  the  appointments  for  1785,  for 
the  first  time,  the  names  of  Tunnell,  Willis,  Ivy,  Ellis,  Reed, 
Matson,  O'Kelly,  Foster,  Whatcoat,  Boyer,  Gill,  Vasey, 
and  Chew,  some  of  whom  were  elected  and  ordained  after 
the  Christmas  Conference,  are  prefixed  to  groups  of  circuits, 
ranging  from  two  to  eight  in  number,  while  the  title  Elder 
is  affixed  to  their  names.  The  almost  invariable  rule  in  the 
beginning,  was  that  elders  were  assigned  to  districts,  or,  rath- 
er, to  groups  of  circuits  not  yet  denominated  by  this  name. 
This  was  the  origin  of  this  office,  though  the  title  "presid- 
ing elder  "  does  not  appear  regularly  in  the  Minutes  until  as 
late  as  1797.  In  the  Discipline  it  occurs  first  in  1792.  The 
first  person  to  bear  this  title  in  the  official  records  of  the 
Church  is  William  McKendree,  whose  district  stands  first  in 
the  appointments  of  1797.    Richard  Whatcoat's  district  is 


214 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Year:  178^. 


the  second.*  The  title  also  occurs  in  the  Journal  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1796.!  As  early  as  1786,  however, 
the  following  was  added  to  the  duties  of  an  elder,  as  defined 
above  in  the  answer  to  Ques.  30,  "2.  To  exercise  within 
his  own  district,  during  the  absence  of  the  superintendents, 
all  the  powers  vested  in  them  for  the  government  of  our 
Church.  Provided,  that  he  never  act  contrary  to  an  express 
order  of  the  superintendents."  %  This  talHes  exactly  with 
Bishop  Soule's  account  of  the  original  relation  existing  be- 
tween the  Bishops  and  the  Presiding  Elders.  Dr.  Stevens 
appears  to  have  overlooked,  or  to  have  attached  little  im- 
portance to,  the  appointment  of  elders  to  oversee  groups  of 
circuits  at  the  very  first  Annual  Conferences  after  the  Christ- 
mas Conference.  He  similarly  disregards  the  action  re- 
corded in  the  Discipline  of  1786,  and  his  statement  that 
"the  new  elders,  ordained  at  the  Christmas  Conference, 
were  appointed  only  to  administer  the  sacraments "  §  is 
too  strong  and  exclusive.  No  doubt  the  administration  of 
sacraments  to  the  long-destitute  Societies  was  a  chief  func- 
tion of  the  new  Superintendents,  Elders,  and  Deacons;  but 
it  is  not  probable  that  the  Elders  (whose  dignity  was  recog- 
nized as  little  inferior  to  that  of  the  Superintendents  them- 
selves,) when  they  were  assigned  to  the  districts  that  we 
have  seen  were  constituted  at  the  Conference  sessions  of 

1785,  were  deprived  of  all  pastoral  and  disciplinary  author- 
ity, save  preaching  and  administering  the  sacraments. 
Ware  expressly  says  the  original  elders  "were  to  visit  the 
quarterly  meetings."  They  were  placed  in  charge  of  the 
preachers  and  people  of  their  districts,  and  though  this  offi- 
cial superiority  was  not  defined  in  the  first  edition  of  the 
Discipline,  as  was  first  done  a  year  later,  Ware's  testimony, 
as  well  as  the  usage  which  we  know  became  universal  very 
shortly  afterwards,  points  to  the  fact  that  from  the  begin- 
ning the  Elders  who  were  in  charge  of  districts  presided 
in  the  Quarterly  Conferences,  in  the  absence  of  a  Superin- 

*  Minutes,  ed.  of  1813,  p.  193.    "fGen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  16.  JDiscipline, 

1786,  p.  332;  Emory's  Hist,  p.  125.    §Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  222. 


First  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  E;piscopal  Church.  215 


tendent,  and,  as  Mr.  Soule  says,  discharged,  in  general,  the 
duties  which  had  formerly  devolved  on  the  General  As- 
sistant. One  differs  with  diffidence  from  such  an  authority 
as  Abel  Stevens:  he  is  quite  right,  however,  when  he  adds 
that  the  Bishop,  at  this  period,  had  "  no  '  cabinet '  of  pre- 
siding elders,  a  species  of  council  which  usage  has  since  es- 
tablished, though  it  has  no  recognition  in  the  DiscipHne."  * 
In  1787,  a  section  "On  the  Constituting  of  Elders  and 
their  Duty"  was  substituted  in  the  Discipline  for  the  previ- 
ous provisions.  The  Elder  is  "to  travel  through  his  ap- 
pointed district;"  "in  the  absence  of  a  bishop  to  take  charge 
of  all  the  deacons,"  etc.,  showing  that,  as  a  rule,  he  did  not 
have  charge  of  other  elders,  and  that  all  elders  served  dis- 
tricts; "to  change,  receive,  or  suspend  preachers;"  "to 
take  care  that  every  part  of  our  Discipline  be  enforced;" 
"to  attend  his  bishop  when  present,"  etc.f  These  regula- 
tions stood  until  1792.  The  Journal  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1792  is  not  extant.  But  Coke  and  Asbury  in  their 
Notes  to  the  Discipline  of  1798  have  this  to  say: 

On  the  principles  or  data  above  mentioned,  all  the  episcopal  Churches  in 
the  world  have  in  some  measure  formed  their  church  government.  And 
we  believe  we  can  venture  to  assert,  that  there  never  has  been  an  episcopal 
church  of  any  great  extent  which  has  not  had  ruling  or  presiding  elders,  ei- 
ther expressly  by  name,  as  in  the  apostolic  churches,  or  otherwise  in  effect. 
On  this  account  it  is,  that  all  the  modern  episcopal  churches  have  had  their 
presiding  or  ruling  elders  under  the  names  of  grand  vicars,  archdeacons, 
rural  deans,  etc  

Mr.  Wesley  informs  us  in  his  Works,  that  the  whole  plan  of  Methodism 
was  introduced,  step  by  step,  by  the  interference  and  openings  of  divine 
Providence.  This  was  the  case  in  the  present  instance.  When  Mr.  Wesley 
drew  up  a  plan  of  government  for  our  church  in  America,  he  desired  that 
no  more  elders  should  be  ordained  in  the  first  instance  than  were  absolutely 
necessary,  and  that  the  work  on  the  continent  should  be  divided  between 
them,  in  respect  to  the  duties  of  their  office.  The  General  Conference  ac- 
cordingly elected  twelve  elders  for  the  above  purposes.  Bishop  Asbury  and 
the  district  [annual]  conferences  afterward  found  that  this  order  of  men  was 
so  necessary  that  they  agreed  to  enlarge  the  number,  and  give  them  tlie  yiame 
by  which  they  are  at  present  called,  [of  which,  however,  there  is  no  trace  in 
the  Minutes:  the  Bishop  probably  acted,  and  the  Conferences  acquiesced] 
and  which  is  perfectly  Scriptural,  though  not  the  -word  used  in  our  transla- 
tion: and  this  proceeding  afterward  received  the  approbation  of  Mr.  Weslev. 


•Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  n.  332,  224.    tDiscipUne  of  17S7,  Section  V.,  p.  8. 


2i6  The  Grand  Climacteric  Tear:  1784.. 


In  1792  the  General  Conference,  equally  conscious  of  the  necessity  of 
having  such  an  office  among  us,  not  only  confirmed  everything  that  Bishop 
Asbury  and  the  district  conferences  had  done,  but  also  drevif  up  or  agreed 
to  the  present  section  for  the  explanation  of  the  nature  and  duties  of  the 
office.  The  conference  clearly  saw  that  the  bishops  wanted  assistants;  that 
it  was  impossible  for  one  or  two  bishops  so  to  superintend  the  vast  work  on 
this  continent  as  to  keep  everything  in  order  in  the  intervals  of  the  confer- 
ence, without  other  official  men  to  act  under  them  and  assist  them :  and  as 
these  would  be  only  the  agents  of  the  bishops  in  every  respect,  the  authority 
of  appointing  them,  and  of  changing  them,  ought,  from  the  nature  of  things, 
to  be  in  the  episcopacy.  If  the  presiding  or  ruling  elders  were  not  men  in 
whom  the  bishops  could  fully  confide,  or  on  the  loss  of  confidence,  could 
exchange  for  others,  the  utmost  confusion  would  ensue.  This  also  renders 
the  authority  invested  in  the  bishops  of  fixing  the  extent  of  each  district, 
highly  expedient.    .    .  . 

From  all  that  has  been  advanced,  and  from  those  other  ideas  which  will 
present  themselves  to  the  reader's  mind  on  this  subject,  it  will  appear  that 
the  presiding  elders  must,  of  course,  be  appointed,  directed,  and  changed  by 
the  episcopacy.  And  yet  their  power  is  so  considerable  that  it  would  by  no 
means  be  sufficient  for  them  to  be  responsible  to  the  bishops  only  for  their 
conduct  in  their  office.  They  are  as  responsible  in  this  respect,  and  in  every 
other,  to  yearly  conference  to  which  they  belong,  as  any  other  preacher; 
and  may  be  censured,  suspended,  or  expelled  from  the  connection,  if  the 
conference  see  it  proper:  nor  have  the  bishops  any  authority  to  overrule, 
suspend,  or  meliorate  in  any  degree  the  censures,  suspensions,  or  expulsions 
of  the  conference.* 

The  section  adopted  in  1792  recognizes  the  duty  of  the 
Presiding  Elder  to  preside  in  Annual  Conferences  (then 
called  district)  and  first  exphcitly  mentions  quarterly  meet- 
ings: "4.  In  the  absence  of  a  bishop  to  preside  in  the  Con- 
ference of  his  district.  5.  To  be  present  as  far  as  practi- 
cable at  all  the  quarterly  meetings,"  etc.  In  two  distinct 
questions,  the  bishop  is  empowered  first  to  choose,  and  then 
to  station  and  change  the  presiding  elders.  This  section 
stood  unchanged  until  1804. 

///.  The  New  Term  of  Communion. 

The  Christmas  Conference  imposed  a  new  term  of  com- 
munion. The  question,  numbered  42,  was  asked,  "What 
methods  can  we  take  to  extirpate  slavery?"  and  this  answer 
was  given : 

*  Discipline  of  1798,  pp.  48-50 ;  Emory's  Hist.,  pp.  293-295.  For  fuller  de- 
tails, see  Making  of  Methodism,  Chaps,  iii.,  iv. 


First  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  217 


We  are  deeply  conscious  of  the  impropriety  of  making  new  terms  of  com- 
munion for  a  religious  society  already  established,  excepting  on  the  most 
pressing  occasion ;  and  such  we  esteem  the  practice  of  holding  our  fellow- 
creatures  in  slavery.  We  view  it  as  contrary  to  the  golden  law  of  God  on 
■which  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  the  inalienable  rights  of  man- 
kind, as  well  as  every  principle  of  the  Revolution,  to  hold  in  the  deepest  de- 
basement, in  a  more  abject  slavery  than  is  to  be  found  in  any  part  of  the 
world  except  America,  so  many  souls  that  are  all  capable  of  the  image  of  God. 

We  therefore  think  it  our  most  bounden  duty  to  take  immediately  some 
effectual  method  to  extirpate  this  abomination  from  among  us;  and  for  that 
purpose  we  add  the  following  to  the  rules  of  our  Society,  viz. : 

1.  Every  member  of  our  Society  who  has  slaves  in  his  possession  shall, 
within  twelve  months  after  notice  given  to  him  by  the  assistant  (which  no- 
tice the  assistants  are  required  immediately,  and  without  delay,  to  give  in 
their  respective  circuits),  legally  execute  and  record  an  instrument  where- 
by he  emancipates  and  sets  free  every  slave  in  his  possession  who  is  be- 
tween the  ages  of  forty  and  forty-five  immediately,  or  at  farthest  when  they 
arrive  at  the  age  of  forty-iive ;  and  every  slave  who  is  between  the  ages  of 
twenty-five  and  forty  immediately,  or  at  farthest  at  the  expiration  of  five 
years  from  the  date  of  said  instrument;  and  every  slave  who  is  between  the 
ages  of  twenty  and  twenty -five  immediately,  or  at  farthest  when  they  arrive 
at  the  age  of  thirty ;  and  every  slave  under  the  age  of  twenty  as  soon  as  they 
arrive  at  the  age  of  twenty -five  at  farthest;  and  every  infant  born  in  slavery 
after  the  above-mentioned  rules  are  complied  with  immediately  on  its  birth. 

2.  Every  assistant  shall  keep  a  journal,  in  which  he  shall  regularly  min- 
ute down  the  names  and  ages  of  all  the  slaves  belonging  to  all  the  masters 
in  his  respective  circuit,  and  also  the  date  of  every  instrument  executed  and 
recorded  for  the  manumission  of  the  slaves,  with  the  name  of  the  court, 
book,  and  folio  in  which  the  said  instruments  respectively  shall  have  been 
recorded;  which  journal  shall  be  handed  down  in  each  circuit  to  the  suc- 
ceeding assistants  [pastors]. 

3.  In  consideration  that  these  rules  form  a  new  term  of  communion, 
every  person  concerned  who  will  not  comply  with  them  shall  have  liberty 
quietly  to  withdraw  himself  from  our  Society  within  the  twelve  months  suc- 
ceeding the  notice  given  as  aforesaid;  otherwise  the  assistant  shall  exclude 
him  in  the  Society. 

4.  No  person  so  voluntarily  withdrawn,  or  so  excluded,  shall  ever  par- 
take of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  with  the  Methodists,  till  he  complies  with 
the  above  requisitions. 

5.  No  person  holding  slaves  shall,  in  future,  be  admitted  into  Society  or 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  till  he  previously  complies  with  these  rules  concern- 
ing slavery. 

B.  These  rules  are  to  affect  the  members  of  our  Society  no  farther 

than  as  they  are  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which  they  re- 
side. And  respecting  our  brethren  in  Virginia  that  are  concerned,  and 
after  due  consideration  of  their  peculiar  circumstances,  we  allow  them  two 
years  from  the  notice  given,  to  consider  the  expediency  of  compliance  or 
non-compliance  with  these  rules. 


2l8 


The  Grand  Climacteric  Year:  1784. 


This  legislation  at  once  came  to  naught.  It  lies  beyond 
our  prescribed  limits  to  notice  the  details  of  the  excitement 
which  followed.  The  general  histories  may  be  consulted 
for  this.  Thomas  Ware  declares,  "We  assumed  nothing; 
made  no  new  term  of  communion,  save  one  on  slavery,  and 
that  we  could  never  rigidly  enforce."  *  In  less  than  six 
months  the  operation  of  these  rules  was  suspended.  The 
Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences  for  1785  contain  this 
action,  "It  is  recommended  to  all  our  brethren  to  suspend 
the  execution  of  the  minute  on  slavery,  till  the  deliberations 
of  a  future  Conference ;  and  that  an  equal  space  of  time  be 
allowed  all  our  members  for  consideration,  when  the  minute 
shall  be  put  in  force."  t  The  Discipline  formulated  at  the 
Christmas  Conference  was  printed  in  Philadelphia  in  1785, 
as  we  have  seen,  and  bound  up  with  the  "  Sunday  Service  " 
and  the  "Collection  of  Psalms  and  Hymns"  which  Mr. 
Wesley  sent  from  England  in  sheets  by  the  hand  of  Dr. 
Coke.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  slavery  legislation  appeared 
in  that  first  edition  of  the  Discipline  alone.  The  action  of 
1785  was,  by  common  consent,  regarded  as  its  absolute  re- 
peal, and,  in  the  second  edition,  printed  in  London  in  1786, 
the  above-cited  legislation  disappears. J  "The  suspending 
minute,"  says  Dr.  Sherman,  "  really  struck  out  all  provis- 
ions on  the  subject."  §  From  this  time  until  1796,  a  period 
of  ten  years,  no  further  mention  of  the  subject  occurs  in  the 
Discipline  except  in  the  General  Rules.  In  1787  however, 
the  Minutes  reveal  another  trend.  The  Annual  Conferences 
took  this  decided  action: 

Ques.  17.  What  directions  shall  we  give  for  the  promotion  of  the  spirit- 
ual welfare  of  the  colored  people?  Ans.  We  conjure  all  our  ministers  and 
preachers,  by  the  love  of  God,  and  the  salvation  of  souls,  and  do  require 
them,  by  all  the  authority  invested  in  us,  to  leave  nothing  undone  for  the 
spiritual  benefit  and  salvation  of  them,  within  their  respective  circuits  or 
districts;  and  for  this  purpose  to  embrace  every  opportunity  of  inquiring 
into  the  state  of  their  souls,  and  to  unite  in  Society  those  who  appear  to 
have  a  real  desire  of  fleeing  from  the  wrath  to  come;  to  meet  such  in  class, 
and  to  exercise  the  whole  Methodist  discipline  among  them.  || 

•Art.  on  Christmas  Conf.,  In  Meth.  Mag.  and  Quart.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1833,  p.  100. 
t  Minutes,  ed.  179S,  p.  83;  ed.  1813,  p.  55. 

i  Emory's  Hist,  of  Discipline,  ed.  1844,  p.  80.    See,  also.  Discipline  of  17S0. 
I  Hist,  of  the  Discipline,  p.  116,  footnote. 
(Minutes,  ed.  1795,  p.  104;  ed.  1813,  pp.  67,  68. 


BOOK  IV. 


From  the  Christmas  Conference  to  the  Insti- 
tution OF  THE  Quadrennial  General 
Conference,  1792. 

I.  The  Conferences  from  1785  to  1792. 
II.  The  Council. 

(219) 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1 792. 

ACCORDING  to  adjournment  at  Baltimore  in  the  spring 
of  1784,  notwitstanding  the  unexpected  inter\^ention  of 
the  Christmas  Conference,  three  Conferences  were  held  in 
the  spring  of  1785:  the  first  at  Green  Hill's,  North  CaroHna, 
April  20;  the  second  at  Mason's,  Brunswick  Co.,  Va., 
May  i;  and  the  last,  as  usual,  at  Baltimore,  June  i.  All 
these  slightly  anticipated  the  appointed  time.*  Jesse  Lee, 
who  gives  us  these  dates,  also  informs  us  that,  in  the  orig- 
inal publication,  "the  business  of  the  three  Conferences  was 
all  arranged  in  the  Minutes,  as  if  it  had  all  been  done  at  one 
time  and  place,"  an  arrangement  also  followed  in  the  re- 
prints of  179s  and  181 3.  This  continued  to  be  the  form  of 
publication  adopted  for  the  General  Minutes  until  1802, 
when  for  the  first  time,  the  one  traveling  connection  is  di- 
vided into  recognized  Annual  Conference  bodies  by  sepa- 
rating and  designating  the  appointment  of  the  preachers  as 
in  the  following  Conferences :  Western ;  South  Carolina ;  Vir- 
ginia; Baltimore;  Philadelphia;  New  York;  and  New  En- 
gland.t  The  next  year  this  improved  arrangement  is  extend- 
ed to  the  statistics  of  members  in  Societ)^';t  and  in  1805  the 
division  into  Annual  Conference  groups  is  carried  through  the 
answers  of  all  the  disciplinary  questions. §  Lee  further  says 
that  "This  year  [1785]  and  the  two  succeeding  years  the 
Minutes  were  called  *  Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,'  "  |1  and  he  is 
confirmed  by  the  original  pamphlet  Minutes  of  1785,  1786, 
and  1787,  which  lie  before  me.  Lee  has  exactly  reproduced 
the  formula  which  appears  on  the  title-pages  of  each  year. 

*Minutes,  ed.  1795,  p.  73;  ed.  1813,  p.  48.    -f  Minutes  of  1S13,  pp.  275-281. 

X/bid.,  pp.  290-294.  %md.,  pp.  325-355- 

II  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  p.  118. 

(221) 


222    To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  1792. 


The  original  Minutes  of  1785  do  not  contain  the  account  of  the 
Christmas  Conference,  prefixed  later.  Evidently  the  term 
*'  General  Conference,"  in  these  earliest  official  recordsof  the 
Church,  is  employed  in  a  sense  different  from  that  which  it 
subsequently  acquired.  The  Conferences  collectively,  or  in 
the  final  session,  were  competent  to  exercise  in  any  year 
the  full  legislative  powers  of  the  Church,  repealing,  it  might 
be,  enactments  of  the  Christmas  Conference ;  their  collective 
supremacy  or  sovereignty,  or  that  of  the  final  session  of  the 
year,  seems  to  have  been  recognized  in  this  use  of  the  term 
"  General  Conference."  Lee  gives  an  interesting  notice  of 
the  rise  of  the  presiding  eldership,  as  we  have  outlined  it  in  a 
preceding  chapter,  confirming  our  view  that  as  early  as  1785 
the  elder  had  charge  of  his  circuit  preachers.    He  says: 

The  form  of  the  Minutes  of  Conference  was  changed  this  year,  and  all 
the  elders  who  were  directed  to  take  the  oversight  of  several  circuits  were 
set  to  the  right  hand  of  a  bracket,  which  inclosed  all  the  circuits  and  preach- 
ers of  which  he  was  to  take  charge.  This  may  be  considered  as  the  begin- 
ning of  the  presiding  elder's  office;  although  it  was  not  known  by  that  name 
at  that  time,  yet,  in  the  absence  of  a  superintendent,  this  cider  had  the  direct- 
ing of  all  the  preachers  that  were  inclosed  in  the  bracket  against  which  his 
name  was  set.* 

Three  Conferences  are  appointed  for  1786  and  1787,  six 
for  1788,  eleven  for  1789,  fourteen  for  1790,  extending  from 
Georgia  to  New  York  and  from  Baltimore  to  Kentucky  and 
Holstein;  for  1792,  the  last  year  of  our  present  period,  sev- 
enteen were  appointed. t  We  can  no  longer,  however,  fol- 
low these  sessions  even  in  the  scanty  detail  which  the  extant 
sources  afford,  but  must  dismiss  them  with  the  remark  that 
the  Minutes  cannot  be  depended  upon  for  the  sessions  actu- 
ally held,  but  only  for  those  appointed.  "  Some,  as  for  ex- 
ample, the  first  New  York  session,  [1788]  are  unmentioned; 
others,  like  that  designated  in  the  printed  list  as  of  '  Connec- 
ticut' for  1791,  did  not  meet."  % 

The  only  important  business  in  the  Conferences  of  1785, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  the  suspension  and  virtual  repeal  of  the 
slavery  legislation  of  the  Christmas  Conference.    Coke  con- 

»  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  119,  120.  fMinutes,  1795,  pp.  83,  93,  105, 
117,  118,  132,  161.    J  Stevens,  Ilift.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  495. 


The  Conferences  from  178s  to  I7g2. 


223 


tinued  in  America  for  about  five  months  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  that  body,  sailing  for  England  June  2.  Sunday, 
May  I,  he  is  with  Asbury  at  the  Virginia  Conference. 

After  mature  consideration  [he  says]  we  formed  a  petition,  a  copy  of 
which  was  given  to  every  preacher,  entreating  the  General  Assembly  of 
Virginia  to  pass  a  law  for  the  immediate  or  gradual  emancipation  of  all  the 
slaves.  It  is  to  be  signed  by  all  the  freeholders  we  can  procure,  and  those  I 
believe  will  not  be  few.  There  have  been  many  debates  already  on  the 
subject  in  the  Assembly.  Many  of  our  friends,  and  some  of  the  great  men 
of  the  states,  have  been  inciting  us  to  apply  for  acts  of  incorporation,  but  I 
have  discouraged  it,  and  have  prevailed.  We  have  a  better  staff  to  lean 
upon  than  any  this  world  can  afford. 

This  was,  doubtless,  a  better  concerted  scheme  than  that 
of  emancipation  by  Church  regulations;  for,  at  this  time, 
many  of  the  statesmen  and  people  of  Virginia,  as  well  as 
other  parts  of  the  South,  were  decidedly  in  favor  of  some 
method  of  gradual  emancipation  by  law.  By  Jefferson's  or- 
dinance of  1784,  though  slavery  then  prevailed  throughout 
much  more  than  half  the  lands  of  Europe,  it  "  was  to  be 
rung  out  with  the  departing  century,  so  that  in  all  the 
western  territory,  whether  held  in  1784  by  Georgia,  North 
CaroUna,  Virginia,  or  the  United  States,  the  sun  of  the  new 
century  might  dawn  on  no  slave."  *  Washington,  Richard 
Henry  Lee,  Jefferson,  Randolph,  Madison,  and  Grayson 
desired  the  abolition  of  slavery.!  The  committee  of  eleven 
in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1787,  to  whom  was  re- 
ferred the  question  of  limiting  the  time  of  the  legal  toleration 
of  the  slave  trade,  reported  in  favor  of  the  year  1800.  It 
was  moved  and  seconded  that  the  time  be  extended  to 
1808.  "  Madison  spoke  earnestly  against  the  prolongation; 
but,  without  further  debate,  the  motion  prevailed  by  the 
votes  of  the  three  New  England  States,  Maryland,  and  the 
three  southernmost  States,  against  New  Jersey,  Pennsylva- 
nia, Delaware,  and  Virginia. "  %  At  about  the  time  when  the 
Virginia  Conference,  under  the  lead  of  Coke  and  Asbury, 
was  formulating  and  circulating  its  petition  to  the  General 
Assembly  for  the  immediate  or  gradual  emancipation  of  the 


*  Bancroft,  Hist.  U.  S.,  VI.  117.   ^Ibid.,  VI.  262.    Xlbid.y  VI.  320. 


224  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  1792. 


slaves,  Jefferson  and  Wythe,  as  commissioners  to  codify  the 
laws  of  Virginia,  had  provided  for  gradual  emancipation, 
which,  however,  the  legislature  of  1785  refused  to  do.*  It 
was  this  movement  in  the  civil  realm,  which,  doubtless,  the 
Virginia  Conference  in  1785  sought  to  foster  and  support. 
Washington's  sentiments  may  be  gathered  from  Coke's  ac- 
count of  the  interview,  when  he  and  Asbury  dined  by  ap- 
pointment at  Mount  Vernon: 

He  received  us  [says  Coke]  very  politely,  and  was  very  open  to  access. 
He  is  quite  the  plain  country  gentleman.  After  dinner  w&  desired  a  private 
interview,  and  opened  to  him  the  grand  business  on  which  we  came,  pre- 
senting to  him  our  petition  for  the  emancipation  of  the  negroes,  and  en- 
treating his  signature,  if  the  eminence  of  his  position  did  not  render  it  inex- 
pedient for  him  to  sign  any  petition.  He  informed  us  that  he  was  of  our 
sentiments,  and  had  signified  his  thoughts  on  the  subject  to  most  of  the 
great  men  of  the  State;  that  he  did  not  see  it  proper  to  sign  the  petition, 
but  if  the  Assembly  took  it  into  consideration,  would  signify  his  sentiments 
to  the  Assembly  by  a  letter.| 

The  Conferences  of  1786  enacted  nothing  material  to  our 
history;  but  this  year  a  second  edition  of  the  Sunday  service 
was  printed  in  London  for  the  use  of  the  American  Metho- 
dists. Traces  of  the  use  of  Mr.  Wesley's  prayer-book  con- 
tinue to  be  met  with  down  to  1792:  it  was  reprinted  by  order 
of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  held  in  1866,  and  its  use  made  optional  in 
the  Churches.  Gowns  and  bands  were  also  used  by  the 
Bishops  and  elders  for  some  years  after  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference. Jesse  Lee  attended  a  service  conducted  by  Bishop 
Asbury  in  January  1785,  and  "  to  his  very  great  surprise  and 
no  httle  mortification,  just  before  the  commencement  of  the 
service.  Bishop  Asbury  came  out  of  his  room  in  full  canon- 
icals, gown,  cassock,  and  band." 

Mr.  Asbury  had  evidently  procured  his  canonicals  imme- 
diately after  his  ordination  as  Bishop.    Sunday,  June  5, 

*  Bancroft,  Hist.  U.  S.,  VI.  118. 

fDrew,  Life  of  Coke,  pp.  108-113,  speaks  of  Washington  as,  at  this  time, 
President  of  the  United  States  which  is,  of  course,  an  error.  He  seems  to 
have  confused  this  interview  of  the  two  Bishops  with  Washington  in  1785 
with  an  Address  \\hich  they  presented  to  the  President  in  1789,  just  after 
his  inauguration,  to  which  attention  will  be  given  later. 


The  Conferences  from  178 j  to  1792. 


225 


1785,  he  laid  the  corner-stone  of  Cokesbury  College.  "At- 
tired in  his  long  silk  gown  and  with  his  flowing  bands  the 
pioneer  Bishop  of  America  took  his  position  on  the  walls  of 
the  College."  *  To  Asbury,  who  had  been  a  life-long  at- 
tendant on  the  services  of  the  Church  of  England,  this 
attire  seemed  no  affectation  in  one  occupying  the  position 
of  a  Bishop,  but  natural  and  necessary. 

It  was  Wesley's  desire  that  a  General  Conference  of  all 
the  preachers  should  be  held  in  1787,  as  may  be  gathered 
from  the  following  letter: 

London,  September  6,  1786. 
Dkar  Sir: — I  desire  that  you  would  appoint  a  General  Conference  of  all 
our  preachers  in  the  United  States  to  meet  at  Baltimore  on  May  1, 1787,  and 
that  Mr.  Richard  Whatcoat  may  be  appointed  superintendent  with  Mr. 
Francis  Asbury.    I  am,  dear  sir,  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother. 

John  Wesley. 

To  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke. 

Objections,  which  will  presently  be  considered,  were 
raised  to  the  election  of  Whatcoat  and  he  was  not,  at  this 
time,  made  a  Superintendent.  Wesley  also  nominated  Gar- 
rettson  for  Nova  Scotia.    Jesse  Lee  tells  us  that 

When  the  business  was  taken  under  consideration,  some  of  the  preachers 
insisted  that  if  he  was  ordained  for  that  station,  he  should  confine  himself 
wholly  to  that,  place  for  which  he  was  set  apart.  Mr.  Garrettson  did  not 
feel  freedom  to  enter  into  an  obligation  of  that  kind,  and  chose  rather  to 
continue  as  he  was,  and  therefore  was  not  ordained.")" 

This  appears  to  harmonize  with  Garrettson's  own  ac- 
count: 

It  was  the  desire  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  others  that  I  should  be  set  apart  for 
the  superintendency  of  the  work  in  Nova  Scotia.  My  mind  was  divided. 
Man  is  a  fallible  creature".  In  the  end  I  concluded  not  to  leave  the  States, 
for  thousands  in  this  country  are  dear  to  me.  On  the  whole  we  had  a 
blessed  Conference,  and  my  appointment  was  to  preside  in  the  Peninsula.  J 

Thus  the  first  attempt  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
to  create  a  missionary  bishop  proved  abortive.  Garrettson 
had  been  ordained  elder  at  the  Christmas  Conference  and 
appointed  to  Nova  Scotia,  where  his  labors  were  Extensive 
and  successful.    Wesley  was  so  favorably  impressed  that 

♦Strickland's  Asbury,  p.  163.  "("Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  p.  126. 

J  Autobiography,  p.  220. 

15 


226  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  i7g2. 


he  requested  his  election  and  ordination  as  Superintendent 
for  the  British  possessions  in  America,  comprising  the  Can- 
adas,  the  Northeastern  provinces,  and  also  the  West  Indies. 
Mr.  Garrettson  writes : 

Dr.  Coke,  as  Mr.  Wesley's  delegate  and  representative,  asked  me  if  I 
would  accept  of  the  appointment.  I  requested  the  liberty  of  deferring  my 
answer  until  the  next  day.  I  think  on  the  next  day  the  doctor  came  to  my 
room  and  asked  me  if  I  had  made  up  my  mind  to  accept  of  my  appoint- 
ment; I  told  him  I  had  upon  certain  conditions.  I  observed  to  him  that  I 
was  willing  to  go  on  a  tour,  and  visit  those  parts  to  which  I  was  appointed, 
for  one  year;  and  if  there  was  a  cordiality  in  the  appointment  among  those 
whom  I  was  requested  to  serve,  I  would  return  to  the  next  Conference  and 
receive  ordination  for  the  office  of  superintendent.  His  reply  was,  "  I  am 
perfectly  satisfied,"  and  he  gave  me  a  recommendatory  letter  to  the  breth- 
ren in  the  West  Indies,  etc.  I  had  intended,  as  soon  as  Conference  rose,  to 
pursue  my  voyage  to  the  West  India  Islands,  to  visit  Newfoundland  and 
Nova  Scotia,  and  in  the  spring  to  return.  What  transpired  in  the  Confer- 
ence during  my  absence  I  know  not;  but  I  was  astonished,  when  the  ap- 
pointments were  read,  to  hear  my  name  mentioned  to  preside  in  the 
Peninsula. 

Thus  it  appears  that  partly  through  conditions  imposed  by 
the  Conference,  and  partly  through  reluctance  and  delay  on 
the  part  of  the  nominee,  Mr.  Wesley  was  disappointed  in  his 
desire  that  Garrettson  should  be  made  a  Superintendent. 

Dr.  Coke  did  not  escape  without  censure.  He  had  sailed 
from  the  West  Indies,  where  he  had  been  organizing  mis- 
sions, for  Charleston,  S.  C,  February  lo,  1787,  arriving  on 
the  28th.  There  he  met  Asbury  and  presided  with  him  over 
the  first  session  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference.  The 
Baltimore  Conference  had  been  appointed  the  year  be- 
fore to  meet  at  Abingdon,  July  24,  but  Coke,  while  yet  in 
Europe,  had,  according  to  Mr.  Wesley's  request,  changed 
both  the  time  and  the  place,  naming  Baltimore  as  the  place 
and  May  i  as  the  time.  At  this  Conference  Whatcoat's 
and  Garrettson' s  nominations  to  the  episcopacy  were  taken 
up,  for  final  disposition.  The  result  of  the  agitations  was 
that  Coke  entered  into  an  engagement  with  the  body  which, 
after  all,  amounted  to  little  more  than  an  agreement  to  re- 
frain from  the  exercise  of  his  episcopal  powers  while  absent 
from  the  United  States.    It  was  couched  in  these  terms: 


The  Conferences  from  178^  to  1792. 


227 


I  do  solemnly  engage  by  this  instrument  that  I  never  will,  by  virtue  of 
my  office  as  Superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  during  my 
absence  from  the  United  States  of  America,  exercise  any  government  what- 
ever in  the  said  Methodist  Church  during  my  absence  from  the  United 
States.  And  I  do  also  engage  that  I  will  exercise  no  privilege  in  the  said 
Church  when  present  in  the  United  States,  except  that  of  ordaining,  accord- 
ing to  the  regulations  and  law  already  existing  or  hereafter  to  be  made  in 
the  said  Church,  and  that  of  presiding  when  present  in  Conference,  and 
lastly  that  of  traveling  at  large.  Given  under  my  hand,  the  second  day  of 
May,  in  the  year  1787.  Thomas  Coke. 

Witnesses:  John  Tunnell,  John  Haggerty,  Nelson  Reed. 

Accordingly  the  Minutes  for  1787  begin:  "  ^ues.  i. 
Who  are  the  superintendents  of  our  Church  for  the  United 
States?  Ans.  Thomas  Coke  (when  present  in  the  States) 
and  Francis  Asbur}'."  * 

The  narrative  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Ware  plainly  points 
out  what  were  the  powers  of  which  Dr.  Coke  deprived  him- 
self while  present  in  the  United  States : 

The  liberty  that  he  took  in  changing  the  time  and  place  of  holding  the 
Conference  gave  serious  offense  to  many  of  the  preachers.  But  this  was  not 
all,  nor  even  the  chief  matter,  which  caused  some  trouble  at  this  Conference. 
Mr.  Wesley  had  appointed  Mr.  Whatcoat  a  Superintendent,  and  instructed 
Dr.  Coke  to  introduce  a  usage  among  us,  to  which,  I  may  safely  say,  there 
was  not  one  of  the  preachers  inclined  to  submit,  much  as  they  loved  and 
honored  him.  Mr.  Wesley  had  been  in  the  habit  of  calling  his  preachers  to- 
gether, not  to  legislate,  but  to  confer.  Many  of  them  he  found  to  be  excel- 
lent counselors,  and  he  heard  them  respectfully  on  the  weighty  matters 
which  were  brought  before  them ;  but  the  right  to  decide  all  questions  he  re- 
served to  himself.  This  he  deemed  the  more  excellent  way ;  and,  as  we  had 
volunteered  and  pledged  ourselves  to  obey,  he  instructed  the  Doctor,  con- 
formably to  his  own  usage,  to  put  as  few  questions  to  vote  as  possible,  say- 
ing: "It  you,  Brother  Asbury  and  Brother  Whatcoat,  are  agreed,  it  is 
enough."  To  place  the  power  of  deciding  all  questions  discussed,  or  nearly 
all,  in  the  hands  of  the  superintendents,  was  what  could  never  be  introduced 
among  us — a  fact  which  we  thought  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  but  have  known, 
had  he  known  us  as  well  as  we  ought  to  have  been  known  by  Dr.  Coke. 
After  all,  we  had  none  to  blame  as  much  as  ourselves.  In  the  first  effusion 
of  our  zeal  we  had  adopted  a  rule  binding  ourselves  to  obey  Mr.  Weslev; 
and  this  rule  must  be  rescinded,  or  we  must  be  content  not  only  to  receive 
Mr.  Whatcoat  as  one  of  our  superintendents,  but  also — as  our  brethren  of 
the  British  Conference — with  barely  discussing  subjects,  and  leaving  the  de- 
cision of  them  to  two  or  three  individuals.  This  was  the  chief  cause  of  our 
rescinding  the  rule.    All,  however,  did  not  vote  to  rescind  it;  some  thought 


Original  pamphlet  Minutes,  1787,  p.  3;  ed.  of  1795,  p.  95;  ed.  of  1S13,  p.  62. 


228  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  1792. 


it  would  be  time  enough  to  do  so  when  our  superintendents  should  claim  to 
decide  questions  independently  of  the  Conference,  which  it  was  confidently 
believed  they  never  would  do.  .  .  .  There  were  also  suspicions  enter- 
tained by  some  of  the  preachers,  and  perhaps  by  Mr.  Asbury  himself,  that  if 
Mr.  Whatcoat  were  received  as  a  superintendent,  Mr.  Asbury  would  be  re- 
called.   For  this  none  of  us  were  prepared.* 

Jesse  Lee  goes  a  little  more  into  detail  about  Whatcoat's 
rejection: 

When  this  business  was  brought  before  the  Conference  most  of  the 
preachers  objected,  and  would  not  consent  to  it.  The  reasons  against  it 
were:  i.  That  he  was  not  qualified  to  take  the  charge  of  the  Connection. 
2.  That  they  were  apprehensive  that  if  Mr.  Whatcoat  was  ordained,  Mr. 
Wesley  would  likely  recall  Mr.  Asbury,  and  he  would  return  to  England. 
Dr.  Coke  contended  that  we  were  obliged  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat,  because 
we  had  said  in  the  minutes  taken  at  the  Christmas  Conference  when  we 
were  first  formed  into  a  Church  in  1784,  "  During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Wesley  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his  sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in  matters 
belonging  to  Church  government  to  obey  his  commands."  Many  of  the 
members  of  that  Conference  argued  that  they  were  not  at  the  Conference 
when  that  engagement  was  entered  into,  and  they  did  not  consider  them- 
selves bound  by  it.  Other  preachers,  who  had  said  they  were  "  ready  to 
obey  his  commands,"  said  they  did  not  feel  ready  now  to  obey  his  command. 
The  preachers  at  last  agreed  to  depart  from  that  engagement,  which  some 
of  the  elder  brethren  had  formerly  entered  into,  and  in  the  next  printed 
Minutes  that  engagement  was  left  out.  They  had  made  the  engagement  of 
their  own  accord,  and  among  themselves;  and  they  believed  they  had  a 
right  to  depart  therefrom  when  they  pleased,  seeing  it  was  not  a  contract 
made  with  Mr.  Wesley  or  any  other  person,  but  an  agreement  among  them- 
selves."j* 

We  have  now  before  us  the  data,  gathered  from  contem- 
porary sources,  for  a  proper  estimate  of  the  constitutional  is- 
sues involved.  The  legislation  of  the  Christmas  Conference 
with  regard  to  the  election,  duties,  and  amenability  of  a  Su- 
perintendent had  properly  the  force  of  fundamental  law,  at 
least  until  modified  or  repealed  by  the  itinerants  who  originat- 
ed it,  whether  assembled  at  one  time  and  place  or  scattered 
through  the  several  sessions  of  the  Annual  Conferences. 
This  was  true  of  all  the  enactments  of  1784,  since  they  were 
passed  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  entire  traveling  ministry. 
Consequently  when  the  slavery  legislation  of  1784  proved 
impracticable,  the  Conferences  of  1785  repealed  it.    It  was 


*  Autobiography,  pp.  129-131.    "[Short  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  126,127. 


The  Conferences  from  1785  to  1792. 


229 


not  competent  for  any  other  authority  to  do  so.  The  year 
1787  brought  the  test  of  the  new  system,  which  had  been  in- 
augurated in  1784.  It  was  inevitable  that  sooner  or  later  an 
issue  would  arise  on  some  practical  measure  which  would 
bring  about  a  collision  between  the  assumed  powers  of  the 
American  Conferences,  where  questions  were  decided  by  a 
majority  of  votes,  and  the  supreme  control  of  Mr.  Wesley. 
Of  the  Founder,  Bishop  Asbury  says  that 

He  rigidly  contended  for  a  special  and  independent  right  of  governing  the 
chief  minister  or  ministers  of  our  order,  which,  in  our  judgment,  went  not 
only  to  put  him  out  of  office,  but  to  remove  him  from  the  Continent  to  else- 
where, that  our  father  saw  fit;  and  that,  notwithstanding  our  constitution 
and  the  right  of  electing  every  Church-officer,  and  more  especially  our  Su- 
perintendent, yet  we  were  told,  "  Not  till  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley  our 
constitution  could  have  its  full  operation."* 

This  was  not  true  so  far  as  the  operation  of  the  Deed  of 
Declaration  was  concerned  in  England,  and  had  no  relevancy 
to  the  enactments  of  the  Christmas  Conference  for  America. 
Asbury  then  cites  the  resolution  of  submission  to  Mr.  Wes- 
ley in  matters  pertaining  to  Church  government,  adopted  in 
1784,  which,  he  says,  "we  were  called  upon  to  give"  and 
"which  could  not  be  dispensed  with — it  must  be."  t  It 
would  thus  appear  that  this  minute  was  exacted  by  Mr. 
Wesley  by  the  mouth  of  his  envoy,  Dr.  Coke.  Unfortu- 
nately the  competition  of  authority  between  Mr.  Wesley  and 
the  Conference,  which  arose  in  1787,  as  a  consequence  of 
the  contradictory  elements  introduced,  (apparently  very  in- 
nocently and  almost  unconsciously  so  far  as  the  body  of 
preachers  was  concerned,)  into  the  constitution  of  1784,  has 
generally  been  treated  as  if  the  history  of  church  govern- 
ment among  the  American  Methodists  began  in  1784.  But 
a  series  of  twelve  Annual  Conferences  had  been  held  previ- 
ously to  that  date,  and  Rankin's  first  Philadelphia  Confer- 
ence of  1773  had  settled,  for  the  time,  at  least,  some  consti- 

*  Letter  to  Rev.  Joseph  Benson,  written  Jan.  15,  1816,  a  little  more  than 
two  months  before  Asbury's  death.  The  letter  is  given  in  full  in  Paine's 
Life  of  McKendree,  H.  293-308,  Appendix. 

t  Paine,  Life  of  McKendree,  IL  296. 


230  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  1792. 


tutional  questions  touching  the  supreme  authority  of  Mr. 
Wesley.  All  of  the  following  events,  we  have  minutely  re- 
hearsed and,  as  we  have  seen,  troubles  almost  immediately 
arose.  Bishop  Asbury,  in  the  letter  to  Benson  cited  above, 
throws  some  new  light  on  his  relations  to  Rankin  and  the 
correspondence  with  Wesley  about  Asbury's  own  recall  to 
England: 

Mr.  Wesley  wrote  concerning  Diotrephes  [Rankin],  honest  George  [Shad- 
ford],  and  Francis,  "  You  three  be  as  one;  act  by  united  counsels."  But  who 
was  to  do  that  with  Diotrephes.?  Francis  had  a  prior  right  of  government, 
by  special  order  and  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley,  a  few  months  after  he  had  been 
in  the  country  [when  he  succeeded  Boardman,  and  before  Rankin's  arrival]; 
and  if  he  could  not  exercise  it  in  the  cities,  where  the  first  missionaries  that 
came  over  were  located  by  necessity,  (having  no  proper  men  to  change  with 
them,)  yet  Francis  in  the  country  endeavored  to  do  the  best  he  could.  Mat- 
ters did  not  fit  well  between  Diotrephes  and  him,  and  poor  Francis  was 
charged  with  having  a  gloomy  mind,  and  being  very  suspicious,  etc.  It 
would  be  presumed,  because  Francis  was  a  little  heady,  that  Diotrephes 
wrote  to  Mr.  Wesley  to  call  Francis  home  immediately.  Be  it  as  it  might, 
Mr.  Wesley  wrote  such  a  letter  to  Francis;  and  Francis  wrote  in  answer, 
that  he  would  prepare  to  return  as  soon  as  possible,  whatever  the  sacrifice 
might  be.  Then  Diotrephes  said,  "You  cannot  go;  your  labors  are  wanted 
here."  Francis  said,  "  Mr.  Wesley  has  written  for  me;  I  must  obey  his  or- 
der." Diotrephes  said,  "  I  will  write  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and  satisfy  him." 
Shortly  after  came  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley  to  Francis,  in  substance  thus: 
"  You  have  done  very  well  to  continue  in  America  and  help  your  brethren, 
when  there  was  such  a  great  call."* 

It  was  doubtless  with  regard  to  the  Baltimore  appointment 
that  Asbury,  in  extreme  old  age,  was  willing  to  confess 
frankly  that  he  had  been  "a  little  heady."  Much  experi-  ^ 
ence  with  refractory  preachers  had  now  taught  him  how  seri- 
ously he  had  embarrassed  Rankin's  administration.  But, 
from  this  time  forward,  there  seems  to  have  abode  in  As- 
bury's mind  a  constant  fear,  almost  morbid,  that,  at  some 
critical  juncture,  when  his  own  views  and  policy  clashed  with 
Wesley's,  the  patriarch  at  home  would  cut  short  the  contro- 
versy by  recalHng  the  American  apostle  to  England.  In  1783 
Asbury  had  clearly  indicated  to  Wesley  his  desire  and,  we 
may  say,  intention  to  remain  at  the  head  of  the  American 
itinerants.  Wesley's  letter  received  by  Asbury,  December  24, 

*  Paine,  Life  of  McKendree,  II.  307- 


The  Conferences  from  178^  to  lygz. 


231 


1783,  was  not  so  much  an  appointment  as  a  recognition  of 
Asbury's  existing  official  headship  in  America.  Coke's  cor- 
respondence with  Wesley  before  his  departure  on  the  Ameri- 
can mission  sufficiently  reveals  that  the  diplomatic  foreign 
minister  of  Methodism  was  by  no  means  confident  of  the  re- 
ception he  would  meet  with  from  Asbury,  or  that  the  Ameri- 
can chief  would  easily  consent  to  a  sharing  of  his  powers. 
Accordingly  he  promptly  declined  Dickins's  proposal  to  make 
Mr.  Wesley's  plan  public  at  New  York  before  Mr.  Asbury 
had  been  consulted.  When  the  plan  was  first  communicated 
to  Asbury  he  was  "  shocked."  Throughout  the  interval  be- 
tween Coke's  arrival  and  the  meeting  of  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, it  is  evident  from  Asbury's  Journal  that  his  mind 
was  troubled  with  many  misgivings.  He  insisted  on  election 
by  the  Conference,  and  interposed  the  vote  of  the  entire 
body  of  American  itinerants  between  himself  and  the  au- 
thority of  Mr.  Wesley.  If  Dr.  Coke  did  not  at  first  take  in 
the  full  significance  of  this  action,  and  the  regulations  con- 
cerning the  Superintendents  embodied  in  the  Discipline  of 

1784,  there  can  be  no  question  that  Mr.  Wesley  did.  In  a 
letter  of  October  31,  1789,  pubhshed  by  Hammett  in  Charles- 
ton, Mr.  Wesley  alluded  to  the  correspondence  of  1783: 

I  was  a  little  surprised  when  I  received  some  letters  from  Mr.  Asbury 
affirming  that  no  person  in  Europe  knew  how  to  direct  those  in  America. 
Soon  after  he  fiatly  refused  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat  in  the  character  I  sent 
him.  He  told  George  Shadford,  "  Mr.  Weslev  and  I  are  like  Caesar  and 
Pompey;  he  will  bear  no  equal,  and  I  will  bear  no  superior."  *  And  accord- 
ingly he  quietly  sat  by  until  his  friends  voted  my  name  out  of  the  Ameri- 
can Minutes.  This  completed  the  matter  and  showed  that  he  had  no  con- 
nection with  me. 

If  the  preachers  of  the  Christmas  Conference  innocently 
inserted  the  minute  of  submission,  Mr.  Asbury  was  not  una- 

*The  biographers  and  historians  who  quote  this  letter  commonly  append 
a  footnote  to  the  effect  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  mistaken  in  attributing  this 
language  to  Asbury.  In  this  they  may  be  correct.  Somewhere  in  his  Jour- 
nal, Asbury  says,  "Mr.  H.'s  [Ilammett's]  quotation  of  a  clause  of  my  con- 
fidential letter  to  Brother  S — d  is  not  altogether  just."  This  may  be  taken 
as  a  mild  denial,  or  a  plea  in  extenuation.  If  Asbury  ever  expressed  the 
sentiment,  it  was  a  private  confidence  to  Shadford,  his  bosom  friend. 


232  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  I7g2. 


ware  of  its  purpose  and  meaning.  Wesley  was,  by  common 
consent,  a  man  of  the  keenest  penetration,  of  unexampled 
common  sense,  and  of  the  first  abilities  as  an  ecclesiastical 
statesman,  likened,  by  competent  authorities,  to  the  greatest 
rulers  in  Church  and  State  the  world  has  ever  produced. 
He  had  seen  the  growing  tendency  to  independence  in  As- 
bury  and  the  Americans.  His  heart  was  set  on  a  perpetual, 
world-wide  union  of  Methodists.  He  had  been  cut  off  from 
all  control  of  the  American  Methodists  during  the  Revolu- 
tion. Their  independence  was  inevitable,  or  Wesley  would 
have  arrested  the  tendency,  if  anybody  could  have  done  so. 
Asbury  was  a  man  of  the  same  practical,  and  scarcely  infe- 
rior, talents.  He  is  the  real  founder  of  American  Methodism. 
"  I  did  not  think  it  practical  expediency,"  he  says,  "  to  obey 
Mr.  Wesley  at  three  thousand  miles  distance."  But  Mr. 
Wesley  did;  and  here  the  issue  was  joined.  The  resolution 
of  submission  in  1784,  which,  Asbury  says,  "  could  not  be 
dispensed  with — it  must  be,"  was  Wesley's  measure,  submit- 
ted according  to  his  instructions  by  his  representative.  Dr. 
Coke,  for  destroying  the  centrifugal  movement  in  America, 
and  bringing  all  into  subordination  to  himself.  Asbury  alone, 
among  the  Americans,  comprehended  the  full  import  and 
bearing  of  the  minute.  Some  dross  of  human  infirmity  may 
have  mingled  with  his  motives,  but  his  heart  was  true  to  the 
cause  of  American  autonomy.  "  I  never  approved  of  that 
binding  minute,"  he  says,  under  date  of  November  28,  1796, 
"  at  the  first  General  Conference  I  was  mute  and  modest  when 
it  passed ;  and  I  was  mute  when  it  was  expunged." 

In  1787,  the  underlying  issue  was,  after  all,  not  so  much 
between  Wesley  and  the  Conference,  or  between  Coke  and 
the  Conference,  as  between  the  Wesleyan  and  Asburyan 
policies  for  the  government  and  development  of  American 
Methodism.  Coke,  no  doubt,  undertook  honestly  and  zeal- 
ously to  carry  out  the  wishes  and  instructions  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley. In  so  doing,  he  came  into  colHsion  with  the  Confer- 
ence and,  for  a  time,  forfeited  the  sympathies  of  Bishop 
Asbury.    Coke  says  in  his  Journal  that  when  he  arrived  in 


The  Conferences  from  iy8^  to  1792. 


233 


the  country,  in  the  latter  part  of  February,  1787,  on  his 
way,  according  to  Mr.  Wesley's  instructions,  to  hold  a 
"  General  Conference,"  he  was  "  very  coolly"  received  by 
Asbury.  Nevertheless,  Asbury  acquiesced  in  Wesley's 
nomination  of  Whatcoat  for  the  superintendency,  and  at  the 
first  South  Carolina  Conference,  held  in  Charleston,  with 
both  the  Superintendents  present,  the  nomination  was  con- 
firmed. At  the  Virginia  Conference,  however,  serious  op- 
position was  made  by  James  O'Kelly,  who  declared  that  he 
did  not  consider  Whatcoat  "  adequate  to  the  task  on  account 
of  his  age,  and  also  that  he  was  a  stranger  in  the  wilderness 
of  America."  The  era  of  the  modern  palace-car  Bishop 
had  not  yet  dawned;  and  O'Kelly  may  have  entertained  a 
sneaking  notion  that  he  was  better  qualified  for  the  office 
than  Whatcoat.  It  was,  however,  agreed  in  Virginia  that 
the  matter  should  be  finally  disposed  of  at  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  *' on  condition,"  as  Nicholas  Snethen  says, 
"  that  the  Virginia  Conference  might  send  a  deputy  to  ex- 
plain their  sentiments."  According  to  Snethen,  "  a  vote  was 
taken  that  Richard  Whatcoat  should  not  be  ordained  Super- 
intendent, and  that  Mr,  Wesley's  name  should  for  the  future 
be  left  off  the  American  Minutes.  Mr.  Asbury  neither  made 
the  motion  nor  advocated  it;  the  whole  case  was  constitu- 
tionally carried  through  the  Conference  and  voted  by  a  fair 
majorit}\  Mr.  Asbury,  indeed,  foresaw  the  consequence 
when  the  question  was  in  contemplation,  and  informed  the 
patrons  of  it  that  he  expected  all  the  blame  would  be  im- 
puted to  him,  if  it  should  be  carried."  * 

It  is  evident  from  the  letter  in  which  Mr.  Wesley  directed 
Dr.  Coke  to  call  a  General  Conference  at  Baltimore,  May  i, 
1787,  that  he  understood  the  contradictory  principles  which 
the  Christmas  Conference  had  bound  up  together  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church.  The  resolution  of  submission,  lit- 
erally interpreted,  empowered  him  to  appoint  superintend- 
ents. But  the  resolution  was  general,  and  the  directions  for 
electing  a  superintendent,  placed  in  the  Discipline  of  1784, 

*  Reply  to  Mr.  O'Kelly's  Apology. 


234        the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference^  1792. 


particular.  Wesley  himself  saw  that  the  resolution,  practi- 
cally, must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  law,  especially 
as  Asbury  had  been  elected  in  1784.  Consequently  he  did 
not  venture  beyond  nomination  in  the  case  of  Whatcoat  and 
Garrettson,  submitting  their  election  to  the  voice  of  a  Gen- 
eral Conference  to  be  called  for  the  purpose.  But  here 
loomed  up  the  ancient  spectre  of  Asbury' s  removal: 

Early  in  1787  [says  Mr.  Morrell],  Mr.  Wesley  intimated  a  design  of  re- 
moving Mr.  Asburj'  from  America  to  Europe,  and  of  sending  us  a  Superin- 
tendent of  his  own  nomination.  When  the  Conference  assembled,  some  of 
the  eldest  and  most  sensible  of  the  elders  observed  that  Mr.  Wesley  had  no 
authority  to  remove  Mr.  Asbury,  much  less  could  he  impose  a  Superintend- 
ent on  us  without  our  choice;  for  it  was  written  in  our  constitution  that  "  no 
person  should  be  ordained  a  Superintendent  over  us  without  the  consent  of 
the  majority  of  the  Conference ;  "  that  no  such  consent  had  been  given  ;  that 
though  they  highly  venerated  Mr.  Wesley,  and  were  willing  to  receive  his 
advice,  and  preserve  and  promote  our  union  with  him,  and  our  Methodist 
brethren  in  Europe,  as  far  as  the  political  interest  of  our  country  would  au- 
thorize us;  yet  they  could  not  give  up  their  rights  to  any  man  on  earth. 
And  after  a  number  of  arguments  to  show  the  impropriety  and  impolicy  of 
any  man  having  the  power  to  exercise  such  an  uncontrollable  and  unlimited 
authority  over  us,  as  Mr.  Wesley  wished  to  do,  and  to  prevent  him  from 
exercising  this  power  in  the  present  case,  by  virtue  of  his  name  standing  at 
the  head  of  the  Minutes,  they  moved  that  it  should  be  struck  off.  The  vote 
was  carried  and  his  name  was  omitted.  Mr.  Wesley  complained  that  we  were 
ungrateful.  We  felt  ourselves  grieved  that  the  good  old  man  was  hurt,  and 
determined  to  give  him  every  satisfaction  in  our  power,  consistent  with  our 
rights,  and  in  1789  the  Conference  consented  that  his  name  should  be  re- 
stored on  the  Minutes,  in  testimony  of  our  union  with  and  respect  for  him; 
but  inserted  in  such  a  manner  as  to  preclude  him  from  exercising  an  uncon- 
stitutional power  over  us.* 

Dr.  Coke,  though  at  first  disposed  to  indulge  in  public 
complaint,  submitted  with  a  good  grace.  Many  thought  that 
the  shepherd  of  the  Methodist  flock  had  received  a  heavy 
blow  in  the  house  of  his  friends,  and  fears  were  entertained 
of  a  schism  among  the  American  Methodists.  Later  O'Kelly 
publicly  charged  that  "  after  these  things  Francis  took  with 
him  a  few  chosen  men,  and  in  a  clandestine  manner  expelled 
John  whose  surname  was  Wesley  from  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church."  But  Snethen  amply  vindicated  Asbury 
against  this  attack.    In  his  Journal,  Coke  says: 

*Rev.  Thomas  Morrell,  in  "Truth  Discovered." 


The  Conferences  from  lyiis  to  1792. 


235 


Our  painful  contests,  I  trust,  have  produced  the  most  indissoluble  union 
between  my  brethren  and  me.  We  thoroughly  perceived  the  mutual  pu- 
rity of  each  other's  intentions  in  respect  to  the  points  in  dispute.  We  mu- 
tually yielded  and  mutually  submitted,  and  the  silken  cords  of  love  and  af- 
fection were  tied  to  the  horns  of  the  altar  forever  and  ever. 

It  is  now  easy  to  grasp  the  import  of  the  certificate  which 
Dr.  Coke  gave  to  this  Conference.  The  /Embassador  fell 
with  his  chief,  the  agent  with  his  principal,  the  servant  with 
his  master.  There  is  no  evidence,  known  to  the  writer,  that 
the  Conference  formally  demanded  this  instrument:  Coke, 
in  a  revulsion  of  feeling  and  exuberance  of  zeal,  brought 
about  by  the  Conference  atmosphere  in  which  he  moved, 
probably  made  a  voluntary  tender  of  it,  which  the  Confer- 
ence did  not  decline.  The  language  of  the  document  is 
that  of  personal  surrender  of  privileges,  hitherto  exercised, 
rather  than  that  of  enforced  restraint  by  a  controlling  trib- 
unal. Coke's  language  in  his  Journal,  "We  mutually 
yielded  and  mutually  submitted"  lends  support  to  this  view. 
When  abroad  he  was  to  exercise  no  episcopal  functions, 
since  he  could  not  have  the  latest  advices  as  to  the  state  of 
affairs  in  America  and  would  be  more  or  less  subjected  to 
alien  influences.  But  when  in  America  he  was  (i)  to  pre- 
side in  the  Conferences,  (2)  to  ordain,  and  (3)  to  travel  at 
large.  But  these  embrace  all  the  duties  and  privileges  of  a 
General  Superintendent.  He  agreed  to  "use  no  other 
power,"  says  Stevens,  "  when  in  the  country  than  that  of  his 
Episcopal  functions."  *  The  Minutes  placed  him  on  a  per- 
fect parity  with  Asbury  when  in  the  United  States.  "  Who 
are  the  Superintendents  of  our  Church  for  the  United 
States?"  the  first  question  reads  in  1787.  "  Thomas  Coke 
(when  present  in  the  States)  and  Francis  Asbur}?^ "  is  the 
answer.!  Why  then  did  Coke  engage  that  he  would  exer- 
cise no  other  privilege  when  present  in  the  United  States? 
What  privilege  can  be  referred  to  ?  Evidently  the  privilege 
of  being  the  proposer,  patron,  and  special  champion  of  such 
measures  as  Mr.  Wesley  might  seek  to  introduce  under 
cover  of  the  resolution  of  submission,  together  with  the  de- 


*  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.,  496.    f  Minutes,  ed.  1795,  p.  95. 


236  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference^  I792- 


cision  of  questions  before  the  Conference  by  the  Superin- 
tendents, as  Wesley  wished,  instead  of  by  a  majority  vote  of 
the  body.*  Ware's  testimony,  cited  above,  is  decisive  on 
this  latter  point.  That  binding  minute  was  rescinded,  and 
Coke,  to  guarantee  his  loyalty,  surrendered  all  functions  he 
had  been  accustomed  to  exercise  as  Mr.  Wesley's  special 
envoy  and  personal  representative.  The  Conference  pro- 
tected itself  by  incorporating  in  the  Minutes,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  limitation  springing  out  of  Coke's  agreement,  and 
there  can  be  no  question  that  the  year  1787  marks  a  great 
forward  stride  in  home  government  for  the  American 
Church.  The  principle  for  which  Asbury  and  the  Confer- 
ence stood  triumphed  over  that  represented  by  Coke  and 
Wesley:  the  binding  minute  was  expunged  never  to  be  re- 
stored, and  the  Founder's  name  was  temporarily  left  off  the 
Minutes.  ^  Much  has  been  written  about  the  curtailment  of 
Coke's  "  episcopal  powers,"  by  vote  of  the  Conference, 
which  is  wide  of  the  mark.  Coke  was  as  much  a  Bishop, 
when  in  America,  after  the  adjournment  at  Baltimore  in 
1787,  as  he  had  been  before  that  Conference  met.  Both 
before  and  after  he  was  as  much  a  Bishop  as  Asbury.  His 
name  always  appears  first  in  the  Minutes.  "It  was  also 
my  pleasure,  when  present,"  writes  Asbury  to  Benson  in 
1816,  "  always  to  give  Dr.  Coke  the  president's  chair."  t 
It  is  not  in  evidence  that  any  vote  of  the  Conference  was 
taken  in  Coke's  case.  Jesse  Lee  says,  "  He  acknowledged 
his  faults,  begged  pardon,  and  promised  not  to  meddle  with 
our  affairs  again  when  he  was  out  of  the  United  States." 
Lee  was  not  an  admirer  of  Coke's  and  his  testimony  may  be 
relied  upon  as  none  too  favorable.  He  adds,  "  He  then 
gave  in  writing  a  certificate  to  the  same  purpose  "  and  cites 
the  certificate  in  full.  From  him,  so  far  as  we  are  aware, 
all  other  writers  have  taken  their  copy  of  this  document.  It 

*As  late  as  1806,  however,  according  to  William  Watters  (Life,  p.  105), 
in  case  of  an  equal  division  in  the  Conference,  the  Bishop  exercised  the 
right  of  giving  the  casting  vote;  and  until  1808  the  Bishops  offered  resolu- 
tions in  the  General  Conference  and  discussed  them.    See, also,  below,  p.  330. 

■j-Paine's  Life  of  McKendree,  II.  J94. 


The  Conferences  from  ijS^  to  1792. 


237 


must  not  be  forgotten,  finally,  that  Coke's  position  was  pe- 
culiar and  anomalous.  There  has  never  been  another  like 
it  and,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  cannot  be.  Originally  ap- 
pointed and  ordained  a  Superintendent  by  Wesley,  and  con- 
tinuing to  hold  official  relations  to  the  British  Conference  as 
well  as  to  the  American,  the  position  of  Mr.  Wesley's  rep- 
resentative and  vehicle  of  personal  communication  in  A.mer- 
ica  was  unique,  and  cannot  be  brought  under  any  general 
rule.  To  undertake  to  do  so  is  to  ignore  history  and  lose 
sight  of  material  particulars  amid  the  glitter  of  confusing 
generalities.  Coke's  relations  to  American  Conferences 
will  come  up  again,  however,  and  a  candid  discussion  and 
correct  interpretation  of  later  facts  must  not  be  anticipated. 

It  remains  to  determine  the  character  of  this  Conference 
of  1787.  In  view  of  Wesley's  letter  of  instructions  to  Coke, 
the  business  transacted,  and  some  other  considerations,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  the  claim  has  been  set  up  that  this  was  a 
General  Conference.  "  It  is  singular  how  plausible  the  ar- 
gument for  the  affirmative  appears,"  remarks  Stevens,  "  and 
yet  how  decisive  that  of  the  negative  really  is."  We  pre- 
sent a  brief  summary  of  the  evidence  for  and  against. 
Those  who  contend  that  the  Baltimore  session  of  1787  was 
a  General  Conference  bring  forward  the  following  proofs: 

(1)  Mr.  Wesley  wrote  to  Dr.  Coke,  "I  desire  that  you 
would  appoint  a  General  Conference  of  all  our  preachers  in 
the  United  States,  to  meet  at  Baltimore  on  May  i,  1787." 

(2)  The  business  to  be  transacted  was  the  election  of  Su- 
perintendents, and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  this  Conference  did 
canvass  the  names  of  Mr.  Wesley's  two  nominees  and  reject 
them  both. 

(3)  Coke  did  invite  the  preachers  by  correspondence  to 
attend  a  General  Conference. 

(4)  The  Baltimore  Conference,  which  had  been  appoint- 
ed the  year  before  for  Abingdon,  Md.,  July  24,  1787,  did, 
in  fact,  meet  in  Baltimore,  May  i,  the  place  and  time  pro- 
posed by  Wesley. 

In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  these  state- 


238    To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  7792. 


ments  of  facts  would  have  to  be  accepted  as  decisive  proofs- 
Let  us  consider  the  contrary  evidence. 

(1)  The  facts  of  Wesley's  requesting  and  Coke's  calling 
a  General  Conference  and  his  changing  the  time  and  place 
of  the  Baltimore  session  are  not  denied.  But,  though  Coke 
did  these  things,  Asbury  and  the  preachers  dissented.  As- 
bury  received  Coke  "  very  coolly  "  on  his  arrival  in  Charles- 
ton, and  the  Conference  itself  rebuked  him  for  his  presump- 
tion. Moreover,  Wesley's  name  was  dropped  from  the 
Minutes,  and  the  resolution  of  submission  was  expunged. 

(2)  Neither  Whatcoat  nor  Garrettson  was  elected. 

(3)  "  That  many  of  the  measures  of  the  sessions  of  1787- 
88  were  of  a  general  character,"  says  Stevens,  "appropri- 
ate only  to  the  general  action  of  the  ministry,  cannot  be  de- 
nied, but  this  fact  can  be  easily  explained.  The  first  Gen- 
eral Conference  (of  1784)  assembled  for  the  organization  of 
the  Church,  and  having  accomplished  its  business,  adjourned 
witnout  providing  for  any  subsequent  session.  General  as 
well  as  local  business  went  on  as  before.  Measures  of  a 
general  character  were  submitted  to  the  successive  Annual 
Conferences,  and,  at  the  final  session  of  the  year,  were  con- 
sidered to  be  determined  by  the  majority  of  votes  in  all;  the 
Minutes  of  all  appeared  still,  in  print,  as  the  records  of  but 
one  conference;  and  their  enactments  were  from  time  to 
time  inserted  in  the  Discipline  without  reference  to  where 
or  how  they  were  enacted.  Now  it  so  happened  that  the 
Baltimore  session  for  1787  was  the  last  session  for  that  year, 
and  therefore  its  reported  doings  were  given  as  the  results 
of  all  the  sessions  of  the  year;  that  is  to  say,  not  of  a  Gen- 
eral Conference,  but  of  the  Conferences  generally.  I  am 
also  of  the  opinion,  from  scattered  allusions  in  contemporary 
books,  that  not  a  few  important  measures,  applying  to  the 
whole  Church,  were  decided  by  one  or  two  of  the  principal 
Conferences,  without  reference  to  the  remoter  sessions." 

(4)  Jesse  Lee,  the  earliest  historian  of  the  Church,  was 
present  in  1787  and  stationed  in  Baltimore;  yet  he  does  not 
speak  of  the  session  as  a  General  Conference,  but  numbers 
it  among  the  other  annual  sessions. 


The  Conferences  from  178^  to  lygs. 


239 


(5)  Lee  does  distinctly  name  the  session  of  1792  as  "  the 
first  regular  General  Conference." 

(6)  James  O'Kelly,  when  he  withdrew  from  the  Church, 
five  years  later,  in  his  pamphlet  against  Asbury  accused  him 
of  excessive  "sharpness"  toward  Coke  at  Charleston. 
About  fourteen  years  after  the  alleged  General  Conference, 
Asbury  writes:  "There  was  no  sharpness  at  all  upon  my 
side  with  Dr.  Coke,  at  Charleston,  respecting  the  proposed 
General  Conference,  {which  was  afterward  held  in  1792.)" 

Coke  says,  in  his  letter  to  the  General  Conference  of  1808, 

There  are  few  of  you  who  can  possibly  recollect  anything  of  what  I  am 
next  going  to  add.  Many  of  you  were  then  only  little  children.  We  had 
at  that  time  [1791]  no  regular  General  Conference.  One  only  had  been  held 
in  the  year  1784.  I  had  indeed,  with  great  labor  and  fatigue,  a  few  months 
before  I  wrote  this  letter  to  Bishop  White,  prevailed  on  James  O'Kelly  to 
submit  to  the  decision  of  a  General  Conference.  This  Conference  was  to 
be  held  in  about  a  year  and  a  half  after  my  departure  from  the  States.  And 
at  this  Conference,  held,  I  think,  the  latter  end  of  1792,  I  proposed  and  ob- 
tained that  great  blessing  to  the  American  connection,  a  permanency  for 
General  Conferences,  which  were  to  be  held  at  stated  times.  Previously  to 
the  holding  of  this  Conference  (except  the  general  one  held  in  1784)  there 
were  only  small  district  meetings,  excepting  the  council  which  was  held  at 
Cokesbury  College  either  in  1791  or  1792. 

And  here  the  case  may  be  rested.* 

In  1787  the  Discipline  underwent  a  complete  revision. 
For  the  first  time  it  was  arranged  in  sections  under  appro- 
priate heads.  This  was  done  by  Bishop  Asbury,  with  the 
aid,  chiefly  clerical,  of  John  Dickins.  As  early  as  Nov.  27, 
1785,  he  says  in  his  Journal,  "  For  some  time  past,  I  had 
not  been  quite  satisfied  with  the  order  and  arrangement  of 
our  Form  of  Discipline ;  and,  persuaded  that  it  might  be  im- 
proved without  difficulty,  we  accordingly  set  about  it,  and, 
during  my  confinement  [with  a  disabled  foot]  in  James'  City, 
completed  the  work,  arranging  the  subject  matter  thereof 

*The  preceding  arguments  have  been  mainly  condensed  from  Stevens. 
Nevertheless,  since  the  original  pamphlet  Minutes  of  1787  are  of  "The 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,"  it  still 
remains  doubtful  whether  the  discussion  of  the  text  is  in  harmony  with  the 
standpoint,  the  usages,  and  the  history  of  those  times.    (See  Appendix  VI.) 


240  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  ijg2. 


under  their  proper  heads,  divisions,  and  sections."  April 
5,  1786,  he  writes,  "  Read  our  Form  of  Discipline  in  man- 
uscript, which  brother  Dickins  has  been  preparing  for  the 
press."  The  publication  was  delayed,  however,  until  May, 
1787,  "  probably  with  a  view  of  obtaining  the  concurrence 
of  Dr.  Coke;"  *  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  submit- 
ted to  the  Baltimore  Conference  which  met  at  that  time.  In 
this  Discipline  the  superintendents  were  first  called  Bishops, 
and  from  it  the  second  question  of  the  former  Discipline, 
embracing  the  resolution  of  submission  to  Mr.  Wesley,  was 
omitted.  This  omission  is  proof  that  this  Discipline  was  not 
published  until  after  the  Baltimore  Conference  of  May,  1787, 
which  took  this  action:  the  introduction  of  the  title  "  bishop," 
without  the  sanction  of  this  Conference,  but  for  which  Con- 
ference confirmation  was  subsequently  asked,  is  proof  that 
this  edition  of  the  DiscipHne,  newly  revised  and  arranged  as 
it  was,  was  not  submitted  to  the  inspection  or  approval  of 
the  Conference,  but  was  published  b)^  authority  of  the  Bish- 
ops. Asbury  and  Coke  were  hardly  shorn  of  all  episcopal 
prerogatives,  and  an  unfastidious  Church,  in  whose  memory 
the  powers  long  exercised  by  General  Assistants  were  still 
fresh,  did  not  deny  them  these  privileges.    Jesse  Lee  says: 

The  third  question  in  the  second  section,  and  the  answer,  read  thus: 
^es.  Is  there  any  other  business  to  be  done  in  Conference?  Ans.  The 
electing  and  ordaining  of  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons.  This  was  the  first 
time  that  our  superintendents  ever  gave  themselves  the  title  of  bishops  in 
the  Minutes.  They  changed  the  title  themselves,  without  the  consent  of 
the  Conference;  and  at  the  next  Conference  they  asked  the  preachers  if  the 
word  bishop  might  stand  in  the  Minutes— seeing  that  it  was  a  Scripture  name, 
and  the  meaning  of  the  word  bishop  was  the  same  with  that  of  superintend- 
ent. Some  of  the  preachers  opposed  the  alteration,  and  wished  to  retain  the 
former  title ;  but  a  majority  of  the  preachers  agreed  to  let  the  word  bishop 
remain;  and  in  the  Annual  Minutes  for  the  next  year  the  first  question  is, 
Who  are  the  bishops  of  our  Church  for  the  United  States.'  In  the  third 
section  of  this  Form  of  Discipline,  and  in  the  sixth  page,  it  is  said:  We  have 
constituted  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church  under  the  direction  of  bishops, 
elders,  deacons,  and  preachers,  according  to  the  form  of  ordination  annexed  to 
our  prayer-book,  and  the  regulations  laid  down  in  this  Form  of  Discipline. 
From  that  time  the  name  of  bishop  has  been  in  common  use  among  us, 
both  in  conversation  and  in  writing.t 

<■  Emory,  History  of  DiscipUne,  p.  8i.   t  HUtory  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  128,  129. 


The  Conferences  from  ijSj  to  1792. 


241 


The  Minutes  of  1787  retain  the  title  "  Superintendents;"* 
in  1788,  the  question  is  first  asked,  "Who  are  the  Bishops 
of  our  Church  for  the  United  States?"  The  answer  is, 
"Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury,"  the  quaHfying  clause 
with  regard  to  Coke,  "  when  present  in  the  States,"  being 
omitted,  t  This  is  fresh  proof  that  the  Discipline  of  1787  was 
published  after  the  Conference  of  that  year:  the  "  next  Con- 
ference," referred  to  by  Lee,  which  confirmed  the  change 
made  by  the  Bishops  in  the  Discipline,  was  the  Conference 
of  1788. 

Referring  to  the  eleven  Conferences  appointed  for  1789, 
Lee  says  that  "  several  of  these  Conferences  were  within 
thirty  or  forty  miles  of  each  other,  which  was  pretty  gener- 
ally disliked  ;  but  at  that  time  the  bishop  had  the  right  of  ap- 
pointing as  many  Conferences  as  he  thought  proper,  and  at 
such  times  and  places  as  he  judged  best."  %  He  gives  us, 
also,  the  best  account  of  the  manner  of  the  formal  restora- 
tion of  Mr.  Wesley's  name  to  the  Minutes,  in  1789,  without 
the  reenactment  of  the  resolution  of  submission. 

As  some  persons  had  complained  of  our  receding  from  a  former  engage- 
ment made  by  some  of  our  preachers,  that  "  during  the  life  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
in  matters  belonging  to  Church  government,  they  would  obey  his  com- 
mands," and  as  others  had  thought  that  we  did  not  pay  as  much  respect  to 
Mr.  Wesley  as  we  ought,  the  bishops  introduced  a  question  in  the  Annual 
Minutes,  which  was  as  follows:  ^ues.  Who  are  the  persons  that  exercise 
the  episcopal  office  in  the  Methodist  Church  in  Europe  and  America?  Aiis. 
John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury,  by  regular  order  and 
succession.  The  next  question  was  asked  differently  from  what  it  had  ever 
been  in  any  of  the  former  Minutes,  which  stands  thus :  ^ucs.  Who  had 
been  elected  by  the  unanimous  suffrages  of  the  General  Conference  to  su- 
perintend the  Methodist  Connection  in  America.'  Arts.  Thomas  Coke  and 
Francis  Asbury.  § 

Both  Lee,  as  above,  and  Bangs  give  the  clause,  "  by  reg- 
ular order  and  succession:"  so  it  stands,  both  in  the  orig- 

*  Ed.  of  1795,  p.  95. 

I  Minutes,  p.  107.  Lee  also  says,  "When  the  Minutes  of  this  year  were 
printed,  the  condition  of  Dr.  Coke's  being  a  bishop  when  in  the  United 
States  "  was  left  out. 

J  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  141. 

%Ibid.,  p.  142. 
16 


242    To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  17^2. 


inal  pamphlet  Minutes  of  1789  and  in  the  collected  Minutes 
published  in  1795.  The  Bishops  doubtless  framed  the 
two  questions,  as  Lee  says,  by  which  Mr.  Wesley's  name 
was  restored,  and  his  powers  discriminated  from  their  own, 
but  the  substance  of  them  was  passed  upon  by  all  the  An- 
nual Conferences.  Coke's  testimony  is  decisive  on  this 
point: 

On  the  9th  of  March  [he  sajs]  we  began  our  Conference  in  Georgia. 
Here  we  agreed  (as  we  have  ever  since  in  each  of  the  Conferences)  that  Mr. 
Wesley's  name  should  be  inserted  at  the  head  of  our  Small  Annual  Minutes 
and  also  in  the  Form  of  Discpline, — in  Small  Minutes,  as  the  fountain  of  our 
episcopal  office;  and  in  the  Form  of  Discipline,  as  the  father  of  the  whole 
work,  under  the  divine  guidance.  To  this  all  the  Conferences  have  cheer- 
fully and  unanimously  agreed. 

So  Mr.  Wesley's  name  stood  in  the  American  Minutes 
of  1789  and  1790:!  before  those  of  1791  were  issued  the 
Founder  of  Methodism  had  joined  the  general  assembly 
and  church  of  the  firstborn. 

The  New  York  Conference  of  1789  voted  an  address  to 
President  Washington,  in  recognition  of  the  new  federal 
constitution,  and  the  first  chief  magistrate  elected  under  it. 
Dickins  and  Morrell  waited  on  Washington,  and  he  designa- 
ted May  29  for  the  reception  of  the  Bishops  and  the  presen- 
tation of  the  Address.  He  had  previously  entertained  them, 
as  we  have  seen,  under  his  own  roof  at  Mount  Vernon. 
Asbury  "with  great  self-possession,"  says  Morrell,  "  read 
the  address  in  an  impressive  manner.  The  President  read 
his  reply  with  fluency  and  animation.  They  interchanged 
their  respective  addresses;  and,  after  sitting  a  few  minutes, 
we  departed."  In  a  few  days,  the  other  denominations  fol- 
lowed this  Methodist  lead. 

There  is  nothing  else  in  the  action  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences down  to  the  assembling  of  the  first  General  Confer- 
ence in  1792  that  affects  the  constitution  or  government  of 
the  Church  sufficiently  to  demand  notice  in  our  history. 


■j-Original  pamphlet  Minutes,  1789,  p.  3;  1790,  p.  4;  ed.  1795,  pp.  119,  137. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


THE  COUNCIL. 

THE  need  of  a  General  Conference,  equally  with  the  dif-^ 
ficulties,  apparently  insuperable,  in  the  way  of  conven- 
ing such  an  assembly,  began  to  press  heavily  upon  the 
Church.  "//■  the  early  custom  of  carrying  general  measures 
from  one  conference  to  another,  till  all  had  acted  upon  them, 
still  continued,"  remarks  Stevens,  "it  had  now  become 
exceedingly  inconvenient."  *  Well  may  this  judicious  his- 
torian express  this  doubt:  it  is  highly  probable  that  measures 
of  prime  importance  or  pressing  urgency  were  sometimes 
determined  upon  by  leading  Conferences,  occasionally  by 
one  such  body,  especially  if  the  last  of  the  year,  or  by  the 
Superintendents  themselves,  acting  on  their  own  responsibil- 
ity. The  general  usage,  however,  was  still  to  pass  legisla- 
tion through  all  the  Conferences. 

To  meet  the  demands  of  the  hour,  the  bishops — Bishop 
Asbury,  in  particular — devised  the  plan  of  "  The  Council," 
and  laid  it  before  the  Conferences  of  1789.  This  plan,  after 
some  debate  and  opposition,  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of 
the  preachers,!  as  follows: 

1.  Our  bishops  and  presiding  elders  shall  be  the  members  of  this  Coun- 
cil; provided,  that  the  members  who  form  the  Council  be  never  fewer  than 
nine.  And  if  any  unavoidable  circumstance  prevent  the  attendance  of  a 
presiding  elder  at  the  Council,  he  shall  have  authority  to  send  another  elder 
out  of  his  own  district  to  represent  him;  but  the  elder  so  sent  by  the  absent- 
ing elder  shall  have  no  seat  in  the  Council  without  the  approbation  of  the 
bishop,  or  bishops,  and  presiding  elders  present.  And  if,  after  the  above- 
mentioned  provisions  are  complied  with,  any  unavoidable  circumstance  or 
any  contingencies  reduce  the  number  to  less  than  nine,  the  bishop  shall  im- 
mediately summon  such  elders  as  do  not  preside,  to  complete  the  number. 

2.  These  shall  have  authority  to  mature  everything  that  they  shall  judge 
expedient:    (i)  To  preserve  the  general  union.    (2)  To  render  and  preserve 


*HUt.  M.  E.  Ch.,  in.  12.    tOrlginal  pamphlet  Minutes,  1789,  pp.  13,  13;  I^e,  p.  149. 

(243) 


244        ^^^^  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  1792. 


the  external  form  of  worship  similar  in  all  our  societies  through  the  continent. 
(3)  To  preserve  the  essentials  of  the  Methodist  doctrines  and  discipline  pure 
and  uncorrupted.  (4)  To  correct  all  abuses  and  disorders;  and,  lastly,  they 
are  authorized  to  mature  everything  they  may  see  necessary  for  the  good 
of  the  Church,  and  for  the  promoting  and  improving  our  colleges  and  plan 
of  education. 

3.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  nothing  shall  be  received  as  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  Council,  unless  it  be  assented  to  unanimously  by  the  Council; 
and  nothing  so  assented  to  by  the  Council  shall  be  binding  in  anj  district 
till  it  has  been  agreed  upon  by  a  majority  of  the  Conference  which  is  held 
for  that  district. 

4.  The  bishops  shall  have  authority  to  summon  the  Council  to  meet  at 
such  times  and  places  as  they  shall  judge  expedient. 

5.  The  first  Council  shall  be  held  at  Cokesbury,  on  the  first  day  of  next 
December  [1789]. 

In  this  plan  the  title  "  presiding  elder  "  occurs  for  the  first 
time  in  the  official  records  of  our  Church.  It  is  used,  also,  in 
the  Minutes  of  1789,*  doubtless  to  conform  them  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  plan:  the  title  then  disappears  from  the  Min- 
utes until  1797,  as  previously  noticed. 

There  were  several  capital  and,  as  the  event  proved,  fatal 
defects,  in  this  scheme.  The  passage  of  such  a  measure 
through  the  Conferences  is  proof  of  Asbury's  commanding 
influence  in  those  bodies,  rather  than  of  his  wisdom  in  devis- 
ing the  plan.  Its  cardinal  faults  are  these:  (i)  the  require- 
ment of  unanimous  assent  in  the  Council  virtually  gave 
Bishop  Asbury — for  Bishop  Coke  was  not  present  at  either  of 
the  sessions  held — an  absolute  veto  on  all  proposed  legisla- 
tion for  the  Church;  (2)  the  presiding  elders,  being  the  ap- 
pointees of  the  bishops,  removable  from  office  at  their  pleas- 
ure, were  not  representatives  of  the  Conferences  or  of  the 
Church,  but  the  delegates  of  the  episcopacy:  the  composi- 
tion of  the  Council  was  thus,  for  the  most  part,  in  the  hands 
of  Bishop  Asbury  alone;  (3)  the  provision  that  the  enact- 
ments of  the  Council  should  have  the  force  of  law  only  in 
those  districts  whose  Conferences  confirmed  them,  threat- 
ened the  Connection  with  speedy  disunion  and  disintegra- 
tion, for,  said  Jesse  Lee,  who  stoutly  opposed  the  plan  from 
the  beginning,  "if  one  district  should  agree  to  any  impor- 


*  Original  pamphlet  Minutes,  pp.  6-9. 


The  Council. 


245 


tant  point,  and  another  district  should  reject  it,  the  union 
between  the  two  districts  would  be  broken,  and  in  process 
of  time  our  United  Societies  would  be  thrown  into  disor- 
der and  confusion."  Thus  the  Council,  though  apparently 
clothed  with  large  powers,  for  so  small  a  body,  in  reality 
could  exercise  but  little,  and  that  Httle  for  the  destruction 
rather  than  the  edification  of  the  infant  Church.  Nullifica- 
tion was  incorporated  in  the  constitution,  and  even  a  useful 
measure  could  be  rendered  hurtful  by  the  rejection  of  a  single 
District — i.  e..  Annual — Conference,  which  would  thereby 
create  a  difference  of  administration,  if  not  positive  schism, 
in  the  body  ecclesiastic.  The  plan  was  as  if  each  Annual 
Conference,  at  the  present  day,  were  empowered  to  confirm 
the  legislation  of  our  General  Conference,  before  it  could 
have  legal  force  within  the  bounds  of  that  Conference. 

Lee  has  preserved  entire  the  Minutes  of  the  first  session, 
of  which  the  chief  points  follow : 

The  proceedings  of  the  Bishop  and  Presiding  Elders  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  Council  assembled  at  Baltimore,  on  the  first  day  of 
December,  1789. 

The  following  members  which  formed  the  Council  were  present:  Fran- 
cis Asbury,  Bishop;  Elders:  Richard  Ivej,  Reuben  Ellis,  Edward  Morris, 
James  O'Kelly,  Philip  Bruce,  Lemuel  Green,  Nelson  Reid,  Joseph  Everett, 
John  Dickins,  James  O.  Cromwell,  Freeborn  Garrettson. 

After  having  spent  one  hour  in  prayer  to  Almighty  God  for  his  direction 
and  blessing,  they  then  unanimously  agreed,  that  a  General  Conference  of  the 
bishops,  ministers,  and  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  the 
Continent  of  America,  would  be  attended  with  a  variety  of  difficulties,  with 
great  expense  and  loss  of  time,  as  well  as  many  inconveniencies  to  the  work 
of  God.  And,  as  it  is  almost  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  ministers  and 
preachers  that  it  is  highly  expedient  there  should  be  a  general  Council 
formed  of  the  most  experienced  elders  in  the  connection,  who,  for  the  fu- 
ture, being  elected  by  ballot  in  every  Conference,  at  the  request  of  the 
bishop,  shall  be  able  to  represent  the  several  Conferences  and  districts  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  they  therefore  concluded  that  such  a  Council 
should  be  so  appointed,  and  convened.  The  Council  then  proceeded  to 
form  the  following  constitution,  to  wit: 

The  aforesaid  Council,  when  assembled  at  the  time  and  place  appointed 
by  the  bishop,  shall  have  power  to  mature  and  resolve  on  all  things  relative 
to  the  spiritual  and  temporal  interests  of  the  Church,  viz.: 

I.  To  render  the  time  and  form  of  public  worship  as  similar  as  possible 
through  all  their  congregations. 


246   To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  17^2. 


2.  To  preserve  the  general  union  of  the  ministers,  preachers,  and  people 
in  the  Methodist  doctrine  and  discipline.       ...  .... 

6.  In  the  intervals  of  the  Council,  the  bishop  shall  have  power  to  act  in 
all  contingent  occurrences  relative  to  the  printing  business,  or  the  educa- 
tion and  economy  of  the  college. 

7.  Nine  members,  and  no  less,  shall  be  competent  to  form  a  Council, 
which  may  proceed  to  business. 

8.  No  resolution  shall  be  formed  in  such  a  Council  without  the  consent 
of  the  bishop  and  two-thirds  of  the  members  present. 

After  the  Council  had  completed  its  own  constitution,  it 
unanimously  proposed  eight  resolutions,  of  which  the  only 
one  of  sufficient  importance  to  engage  our  attention  is  the 
first: 

Every  resolution  of  the  first  Council  shall  be  put  to  vote  in  each  Confer- 
ence, and  shall  not  be  adopted  unless  it  obtains  a  majority  of  the  different 
Conferences.  But  ever}'  resolution  which  is  received  by  a  majority  of  the 
several  Conferences  shall  be  received  by  every  member  of  each  Conference. 

Here  is  a  serious  attempt  to  relieve  the  obvious  difficulties 
and  objections  to  which  the  original  plan  was  exposed.  The 
resolution,  cited  above,  was  doubtless  intended  to  submit  the 
items  of  the  new  constitution,  adopted  by  the  Council  itself, 
to  the  confirmation  of  the  District,  or  Annual,  Conferences, 
since  the  "resolutions  of  the  frst  Council"  are  specially 
mentioned. 

Whether  this  resolution  itself  was  submitted  to  the  Con- 
ferences, under  the  condition  of  the  original  plan,  that 
nothing  "  shall  be  binding  in  any  district  till  it  has  been 
agreed  upon  by  a  majority  of  the  Conference  "  for  that  dis- 
trict, is  more  than  doubtful.  This  was  a  source  of  addition- 
al trouble,  for  Lee  complains: 

When  the  Council  was  first  proposed,  the  preachers  in  each  district  were 
to  have  the  power  to  reject  or  retain  the  measures  which  had  been  adopted 
by  the  Council.  But  when  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  came  out,  they 
had  changed  the  plan,  and  determined  that  if  a  majority  of  the  preachers  in 
the  different  districts  should  approve  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Council,  it 
should  then  be  binding  on  every  preacher  in  each  district. 

Thus  the  Council  had  made  an  alteration  for  the  better, 
but  the  Conferences  doubted  its  power  to  do  so.  The  Bish- 
op's veto  is  expressly  retained;  but  the  requirement  of  unan- 
imous action  in  the  Council  is  altered  to  a  two-thirds  maiori- 


The  Council. 


247 


ty.  Moreover,  the  composition  of  the  body  is  made  depend- 
ent on  election  by  the  Conferences.  These  were  vital  con- 
cessions and  improvements,  necessary  even  to  an  experimen- 
tal working  of  the  plan.  They  indicate  the  purity  of  Bishop 
Asbur}''s  motives  and  his  willingness  to  reach  any  accommo- 
dation with  the  Conferences  and  preachers,  which  would  se- 
cure the  benefits  of  a  general  and  uniform  government  for 
the  Connection.  He  regarded  the  Council  as  in  part  a  de- 
vice for  relieving  his  responsibilities,  increasing  his  amena- 
bility, and  curtaiUng  his  powers. 

Can  ^-ou  think  it  right  that  the  Bishops  or  Bishop — as  the  chief  lies  upon 
myself — should  have  the  sole  government  of  our  college  and  schools,  [he 
writes  to  Morrell,  soon  after  the  adjournment  of  the  first  Council,]  unaided 
by  the  counsel  of  the  wisest  and  most  able  of  our  brethren,  whom  I  hope  the 
wisdom  of  the  Conferences  will  elect?  Ought  he  not  to  try  to  be  guarded 
better  and  have  a  Council,  as  so  many  witnesses  to  his  probity  and  transac- 
tions, and  a  security  that  he  may  not  run  headlong  to  make  the  community 
insolvent?  The  profits  arising  from  printing,  if  that  work  is  prudently  con- 
ducted, will,  ere  long,  make  one  thousand  per  year.  We  have  told  the  pub- 
lic how  these  profits  shall  be  applied,  and  they  expect  that  we  not  only 
mean,  but  will  do,  what  we  promise.  Now  as  the  train  of  this  was  laid  by 
me,  it  ought  not  to  be  and  cannot  be  taken  out  of  my  hands  altogether  as 
the  Bishop  of  the  Church — as  in  some  sense  to  many  the  father  of  the  Con- 
nection, unless  it  can  be  proved  I  have  done  wickedly.  As  to  acting  weak- 
ly, I  may  have  done  so.  Therefore  I  want  good  and  frequent  counsel.  I 
can  ask  the  Conferences,  but  I  cannot  drag  the  business  twelve  or  thirteen 
times  through  Conferences;  that  is  enough  to  tire  the  spirit  of  Moses  and 
Job. 

From  his  Journal  we  learn  that  in  this  first  session,  Ive}' 
represented  the  Georgia  District  or  Conference;  Ellis,  the 
South  Carolina;  Morris,  the  North  CaroHna;  Bruce,  the 
North  Virginia;  O'Kelly,  the  South  Virginia;  Green,  the 
Ohio;  Reid,  the  Western  Shore  of  Marj'land;  Everett,  the 
Eastern  Shore;  Dickins,  Pennsylvania;  Cromwell,  Jersev: 
and  Garrettson,  New  York.  Thus  the  Council  was  truly 
representative  and  connectional,  and  Asbury  adds,  "A  spirit 
of  union  per\'aded  the  whole  body;  producing  blessed  ef- 
fects and  fruits."  * 

Jesse  Lee,  unaware  of  these  proposed  reforms,  emanating 


♦Journal,  II.  59:  Dec.  4,  1789. 


248  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  1792. 


from  the  Council  itself,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  body  point- 
ing out  the  errors  and  evils  of  the  plan.  He  received  an  of- 
ficial reply,  dated  "  In  Council,  Baltimore,  December  7, 
1789:" 

Very  Dear  Brother:  We  are  both  grieved  and  surprised  to  find  that 
you  make  so  many  objections  to  the  very  fundamentals  of  Methodism.  But 
we  consider  your  -Mant  of  experience  in  many  things,  and  therefore  put  the 
best  construction  on  your  intention.  You  are  acquainted  with  the  discipline 
of  the  Methodist  Church:  if  you  can  quietly  labor  among  us  under  our  disci- 
pline and  rules,  we  cheerfully  retain  you  as  our  brother  and  fellow-laborer, 
and  remain  yours  in  sincere  affection.* 

Attached  to  this  epistle  was  the  signature  of  James  O 'Kel- 
ly, as  one  of  the  members  of  the  Council.  Scarcely  had  he  re- 
turned from  the  session,  however,  before  he  began  a  course  of 
determined  and  systematic  opposition  to  Asbury  and  the  Coun- 
cil. He  had  been  ordained  elder  at  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, and  from  that  time  had  continued  without  interruption 
on  the  South  Virginia  District:  as  a  leader  his  position  and 
influence  were  hardly  inferior  to  that  of  Asbury  himself. 
He  charged,  "  That  Francis  refused  two  worthy  ministers  a 
seat  in  Council  in  his  absolute  manner,  without  rendering 
any  reason  for  such  conduct;"  to  which  Nicholas  Snethen 
replied,  "  Mr.  Asbury  asked  leave  of  the  District  Confer- 
ences to  meet  all  the  presiding  elders  in  Council  at  Balti- 
more. Two  preachers,  it  appears,  who  were  not  presiding 
elders,  asked  leave  to  sit  in  the  Council,  but  Mr.  A.  had  no 
authority  to  grant  them  their  request."  January  12,  1790, 
Asbury  writes : 

I  received  a  letter  from  the  presiding  elder  of  this  district,  James  O'Kel- 
ly:  he  makes  heavy  complaints  of  my  power,  and  bids  me  stop  for  one 
year,  or  he  must  use  his  influence  against  me— power!  power!  there  is  not 
a  vote  given  in  a  Conference  in  which  the  presiding  elder  has  not  greatly 
the  advantage  of  me.  .  .  .  But  who  has  the  power  to  lay  an  embargo  on 
me,  and  to  make  of  none  effect  the  decision  of  all  the  Conferences  of  the 
union  I 

The  Council  and  its  legislation  came  before  the  Confer- 
ences of  1790.  February  15,  Asbury  is  at  the  South  Caro- 
lina Conference,  and  records,  "The  business  of  the  Coun- 


*  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  282.    f  Journal,  II.  62. 


The  Council. 


cil  came  before  us ;  and  it  was  determined  that  the  concerns 
of  the  college  and  the  printing  should  be  left  with  the  Coun- 
cil to  act  decisively  upon ;  but  that  no  new  canons  should  be 
made,  nor  the  old  altered,  without  the  consent  of  the  Con- 
ference." *  June  I,  he  is  holding  the  North  Carolina  Con- 
ference, and  says,  "  Our  business  was  much  matured,  the 
critical  concern  of  the  Council  understood,  and  the  plan, 
with  its  amendments  [proposed  by  the  Council]  adopted."  f 
At  the  Virginia  Conference,  June  i6,  the  Bishop  records, 
"All  was  peace  until  the  Council  was  mentioned.  The 
young  men  appear  to  be  entirely  under  the  influence  of  the 
elders,  and  turned  it  out  of  doors.  I  was  weary  and  felt 
but  little  freedom  to  speak  on  the  subject.  The  business  is 
to  be  explained  to  every  preacher;  and  then  it  must  be  car- 
ried through  the  Conferences  twenty-four  times;  i.  e., 
through  all  the  Conferences  for  two  years."  %  August  26, 
he  says,  "To  conciliate  the  minds  of  our  brethren  in  the 
south  district  of  Virginia,  who  are  restless  about  the  Coun- 
cil, I  wrote  their  leader  [O 'Kelly]  informing  him,  '  that  I 
would  take  my  seat  in  council  as  another  member;'  and,  in 
that  point,  at  least,  waive  the  claims  of  Episcopacy; — yea,  I 
would  lie  down  and  be  trodden  upon,  rather  than  knowingly 
injure  one  soul."  §  September  14,  "We  held  our  Confer- 
ence for  the  eastern  shore  of  Maryland  and  Delaware.  One 
or  two  of  our  brethren  felt  the  Virginia  fire  about  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Council,  but  all  things  came  into  order  and  the 
Council  obtained."  II  September  23,  "The  Conference 
began  in  poor  Pennsylvania  district.  ...  I  am  weak 
and  have  been  busy,  and  am  not  animated  by  the  hope  of 
doing  good  here;  I  have  therefore  been  silent  the  whole 
week."  If  He  did  not  have  the  heart  even  to  mention  the 
Council.  But  at  the  New  Jersey  Conference,  at  Burling- 
ton, September  28,  "  Harmony  has  prevailed  and  the  Coun- 
cil has  been  unanimously  adopted."  ** 


♦Journal,  II.  65.   ^  Ibid.,ll.  t^.   J/^/tf.,  II.  76.   %Ib{d.,ll.Z2.    || /Wrf.,  II.  83. 
T[/*«rf.,II.  83.  II.  84. 


250  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference^  1792- 


In  O 'Kelly's  district  was  a  young  preacher,  William  Mc- 
Kendree  by  name.  September  27,  1790,  his  presiding  elder 
held  his  quarterly  meeting.  "  We  had  a  melting  time  at  sacra- 
ment," says  McKendree,  in  his  diary,  "and  then  the  poor  mis- 
erable Council  took  up  all  our  time  until  ten  o'clock  at  night."* 
Early  in  November,  nearly  a  month  before  the  second  ses- 
sion of  the  Council,  which  he  did  not  attend,  O' Kelly 
called  an  irregular  meeting  of  the  preachers  of  his  district. 
"  On  Thursday,  Nov.  4,"  says  McKendree,  "  met  the  preach- 
ers in  conference  at  Brother  Young's;  twenty-two  preachers 
present,  and  by  nine  o'clock  agreed  to  send  no  member  to 
Council,  but  stand  as  we  are  until  next  Conference."  This 
Conference  session  had  been  convened  by  "  proclamation 
of  Mr.  O' Kelly,  inviting  the  preachers  to  meet  in  Mecklen- 
burg." On  the  second  day  of  this  called  Conference,  a 
document  was  approved  and  directed  to  be  forwarded  to  the 
Council,  "thus  placing  the  Virginia  Conference,"  adds 
Bishop  Paine,  "  almost  in  the  position  of  seceders."  t 

Lee  has  carefully  preserved  the  Minutes  of  the  second 
session  of  the  Council,  also,  from  which  a  brief  extract  may 
embody  the  important  points : 

Minutes,  taken  at  a  Council  of  the  Bishop,  and  Delegated  Elders  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  held  at  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland, 
December  i,  1790. 

Q.  What  members  are  present?  A.  Francis  Asbury,  bishop:  Freeborn 
Garrettson,  Francis  Poythress,  Nelson  Reid,  John  Dickins,  Philip  Bruce, 
Isaac  Smith,  Thomas  Bowen,  James  O.  Cromwell,  Joseph  Everett,  and 
Charles  Connaway. 

Q.  What  power  do  the  Council  consider  themselves  invested  with  by 
their  electors?  A.  First  they  unanimously  consider  themselves  invested 
with  full  power  to  act  decisively  in  all  temporal  matters.  And  secondly,  to 
recommend  to  the  several  Conferences  any  new  canons,  or  alterations  to 
be  made  in  any  old  ones. 

Q.  When  and  where  shall  the  next  Council  be  held?  A.  At  Cokesbury 
College  or  Baltimore,  on  the  ist  day  of  December,  1792. 

'*  But,"  continues  Lee,  "  their  proceedings  gave  such  dis- 
satisfaction to  our  Connection  in  general,  and  to  some  of  the 
traveling  preachers  in  particular,  that  they  were  forced  to 

*  Paine,  Life  of  McKendree,  I.  113.    ^  Ibid.,  I.  128. 


The  Council. 


abandon  the  plan;  and  there  has  never  since  been  a 
meeting  of  the  kind."  * 

Lee  tells  us  that  in  his  letter  to  the  Council  at  its  first  ses- 
sion he  *'  contended  for  a  General  Conference,  which  plan 
was  disapproved  of  by  all  the  Council."  His  biographer 
says,  "Notwithstanding  the  unceremonious  rejection  of  his 
letter  and  himself,  by  the  Council  of  1789,  he  maintained  his 
position  and  his  principles;  and  in  July,  1791,  submitted  a 
plan  for  a  delegated  General  Conference  in  1792  to  Bishop 
Asbury.  .  .  .  There  may  have  been  an  earlier  advocate 
of  such  a  measure,  but  we  have  not  discovered  it."  t  "  This 
day,"  writes  Asbury,  July  7,  1791,  "Jesse  Lee  put  a  paper 
into  my  hand  proposing  the  election  of  not  less  than  two,  nor 
more  than  four  preachers  from  each  Conference,  to  form  a 
General  Conference  in  Baltimore,  in  December,  1792,  to  be 
continued  annually."  %  Stevens  concedes  that  Lee  is  "  en- 
titled to  the  credit  of  being  the  author  of  the  change,  which, 
though  resisted  for  sixteen  years,  was  at  last  forced  upon 
the  body  in  1808  by  irresistible  necessity."  §  At  that  time, 
however,  Lee's  persistent  opposition  on  minor  points  en- 
dangered the  passage  of  the  whole  measure. 

But  Mr.  O'Kelly  also  contributed,  in  his  way,  towards  se- 
curing a  General  Conference,  as  the  only  sufficient  remedy 
for  the  ills  that  were  then  afflicting  the  Church.  He  had 
written  to  Dr.  Coke  in  England,  and  had  created  a  tempo- 
rary alienation,  once  more,  between  the  two  Superintendents. 
"It  is  nothing  strange,"  says  Snethen,  "that  Dr.  Coke 
should  be  affected  by  Mr.  O'Kelly's  representation  of  Mr. 
Asbury's  conduct;  and  finding  Mr.  Asbury  averse  to  a 
General  Conference,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Doctor 
should  insist  upon  Mr.  O'Kelly's  request  being  granted.  A 
few  sharp  words  passed  between  the  two  Bishops  on  this 

*For  Lee's  account,  embracing  minutes  of  both  sessions,  see  Hist,  of 
Meth.,  pp.  149-159.  I  have  also  examined  the  original  Minutes  of  Council 
for  1790,  published  under  the  title  cited  above:  "Baltimore:  Printed  by  W. 
Goddard  and  J.  Angell,  in  Market  Street.  M,  DCC,  XC."  t  Life  of  Jesse 
Lee,  pp.  270,  271.    JJournal,  n.  no.   §  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  III.  15. 


252  To  the  Institution  of  the  General  Conference,  1792. 


occasion,  but  the  heat  was  over  in  a  moment."  *  Snethen 
adds,  "Mr.  Asbury  submitted  to  a  General  Conference  for 
fear  of  a  division  in  the  Connection.  Like  the  true  mother, 
he  could  not  bear  the  idea  of  dividing  the  living  child." 
Asbury's  own  account  harmonizes  with  Snethen's.  Febru- 
ary 23,  1791,  he  says:  "  Long-looked-for  Doctor  Coke  came 
to  town  [Charleston].  He  had  been  shipwrecked  off  Edis- 
to.  I  found  the  Doctor's  sentiments  with  regard  to  the 
Council  quite  changed.  James  O' Kelly's  letters  had 
reached  London.  I  felt  perfectly  calm,  and  acceded  to  a 
General  Conference  for  the  sake  of  peace."  t  Although  it 
was  expected  that  some  would  attempt  to  revive  the  Council 
at  the  General  Conference,  it  was  not  so  much  as  men- 
tioned. All  "showed  a  disposition,"  says  Lee,  "to  drop 
the  Council,  and  all  things  belonging  thereto."  Indeed 
Bishop  Asbury  "  requested  that  the  name  of  the  Council 
might  not  be  mentioned  in  the  Conference."  It  was  dead, 
and  Jesse  Lee,  who  had  done  so  much  to  kill  it,  was  pres- 
ent at  its  burial.  "  His  triumph  had  come ;  and  it  was  com- 
plete.   He  enjoyed  it  in  silence."  % 

One  act,  commonly  attributed  to  the  Council,  has  long 
survived  it.  The  General  Rules,  as  framed  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
contained  nothing  with  regard  to  slavery.  The  DiscipUne 
of  1789  contains,  for  the  first  time,  a  general  rule  on  this 
subject,  in  this  language:  "The  buying  or  selling  the 
bodies  and  souls  of  men,  women,  or  children,  with  an  inten- 
tion to  enslave  them."  §  Of  this  interpolation,  a  competent 
authority  says:  "  No  Conference  put  it  there,  and  no  editor 
or  printer  ever  confessed  doing  it.  It  happened  in  the  time 
of  the  Council,  the  limit  of  whose  powers  was  not  well  de- 
fined, in  its  own  estimation."  || 

*  Reply  to  O'Kelly. 
tjournal,  II.  95. 

J  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee's  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  271. 

§DiscipHne  of  1789,  p.  48;  Emory,  Hist,  of  the  Discipline,  pp.  180,  181; 
Sherman,  Hist,  of  the  Discipline,  p.  114. 

II  McTyeire,  History  of  Methodism,  jip.  403,  404.  Bishop  Harris  (Pow- 
ers of  the  General  Conference,  p.  64,  ed.  i860)  mistakenly  asserts  that  this 
General  Rule  was  enacted  in  1784  by  the  Christmas  Conference. 


The  Council. 


253 


The  last  question  in  the  Minutes  of  1792  is  this,  "  When 
and  where  shall  the  next  Conferences  be  held?"  Twenty 
Annual  Conferences  are  appointed;  but  before  the  an- 
nouncement of  their  times  and  places,  this  entry  is  made: 
"  General  Conference,  November  i,  1792."  *  Thus  this 
General  Conference  was  appointed  by  authority  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences. 

In  his  communication  to  the  General  Conference  of  1808, 
explanatory  of  his  letter  to  Bishop  White  in  1791,  Bishop 
Coke  expresses  his  alarm  for  the  unity  and  stability  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  caused  by  O'Kelly's  schis- 
matic Conference  and  the  widespread  disaffection  at  this 
time  on  account  of  the  Council  and  its  doings,  and  urges 
these  facts  in  extenuation  of  his  confidential  overture  to  Bish- 
op White.    He  says: 

I  had  indeed,  with  great  labor  and  fatigue,  a  few  months  before  I  wrote 
this  letter  to  Bishop  White,  prevailed  on  James  O'Kelly,  and  the  thirty-six 
traveling  preachers  who  had  withdrawn  with  him  from  all  connection  with 
Bishop  Asbury,  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  a  General  Conference.  This 
Conference  was  to  be  held  in  about  a  year  and  a  half  after  my  departure 
from  the  States.  And  at  this  Conference,  held  I  think  the  latter  end  of 
1792,  I  proposed  and  obtained  that  great  blessing  to  the  American  Connec- 
tion— a  permanency  for  General  Conferences,  which  were  to  be  held  at 
stated  times.  .  .  .  The  society  as  such,  taken  as  an  aggregate,  was  al- 
most like  a  rope  of  sand.  I  longed  to  see  matters  on  a  footing  likely  to  be 
permanent.  Bishop  Asbury  did  the  same;  and  it  was  that  view  of  things,  I 
doubt  not,  which  led  Bishop  Asbury,  the  year  before,  to  call  and  endeavor 
to  establish  a  regular  Council,  who  were  to  meet  him  annually  at  Cokes- 
bury.    For  this  point  I  differed  in  sentiment  from  my  venerable  brother. 

In  truth,  Coke,  O' Kelly,  and  Lee,  may  fairly  claim  the 
honors  of  securing  the  session  of  the  first  Quadrennial  Gen- 
eral Conference.  It  is  evident  that  the  Conference  and  the 
Council  were  competing  solutions  of  the  existing  legislative 
difficulties  of  the  Church.  Snethen  declares  that  "  the  in- 
stant a  General  Conference  was  acceded  to,  the  Council  was 
superseded."  Asbury  was  the  author  and  patron  of  the  lat- 
ter. Lee  and  O'Kelly — the  former,  loyally  and  legitimately, 
and  the  latter,  schismatically  and  insidiously — became  its 


♦Original  pamphlet  Minutes,  1792,  p.  15;  ed.  1795,  p.  178;  ed.  1813,  p.  119. 


254  Institution  of  the  General  Conference.,  1792. 


chief  opponents.  O'Kelly  enlisted  the  cooperation  of  Coke, 
and  he,  by  becoming  the  champion  of  a  General  Confer- 
ence, must  be  allowed  to  have  been  the  agent  who  brought 
about  at  once  the  destruction  of  the  Council  and  the  inau- 
guration of  the  Conference.  At  the  General  Conference  of 
1792,  he  was  the  father  of  the  measure  which  incorporated 
the  General  Conference  permanently  in  the  government  of 
the  Church.  Asbury  had  been,  indeed,  in  1784,  the  pro- 
poser of  the  Christmas  Conference.  Then,  and  again  in 
1787,  he  successfully  interposed  the  authority  of  the  Amer- 
ican itinerants  between  himself  and  Mr.  Wesley.  But  he 
does  not  seem,  at  this  juncture,  to  have  been  favorable  to  a 
permanency  of  General  Conferences,  or  even  to  a  repeti- 
tion in  1792  of  the  experiment  of  1784.  The  Council  was 
his  personal  measure,  to  which  he  appears  to  have  been  ar- 
dently attached.  In  this,  we  need  not  asperse  his  motives. 
But  the  inherent  weaknesses  and  evils  of  the  scheme  doomed 
it  from  the  beginning.  As  a  consequence,  Coke,  Lee,  and 
O'Kelly  secured  a  General  Conference. 


BOOK  V. 


The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences  to  the 
Institution  of  the  Delegated 
General  Conference. 

I.  The  General  Conference  of  1792. 
II.  The  General  Conference  of  1796. 

III.  The  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1804. 

IV.  The  General  Conference  of  1808. 

(256) 


CHAPTER  XV. 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF   1 792. 

NO  official  Minutes  of  this  Conference  are  extant.  "  The 
Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  for  1792,"  says 
Dr.  McClintock,  "were  never  printed  to  my  knowledge, 
nor  can  I  find  the  original  copy."  *  This  is  confirmed  by 
Jesse  Lee,  who  says  in  his  History:  "The  proceedings  of 
that  Conference  were  hot  published  in  separate  Minutes,  but 
the  alterations  were  entered  at  their  proper  places,  and  pub- 
lished in  the  next  edition  of  the  Form  of  DiscipHne."  t 
The  title  of  this  eighth  edition  is,  "The  Doctrines  and  Disci- 
pline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  re- 
vised and  approved  at  the  General  Conference  held  at  Bal- 
timore, in  the  State  of  Maryland,  in  November,  1792:  in 
which  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  presided. "f  This 
Discipline,  Lee's  History,  Coke's  and  Asburj^'s  Journals, 
together  with  the  reminiscences  of  Ware,  Garrettson,  and 
Colbert,  are  our  sole,  but  sufficient,  sources,  for  the  transac- 
tions of  this  First  Quadrennial  General  Conference. 
The  attendance  \was  large.    Lee  says  that 

Our  preachers  who  had  been  received  into  full  connection  came  together 
from  all  parts  of  the  United  States  where  we  had  any  circuits  formed,  with 
an  expectation  that  something  of  great  importance  would  take  place  in  the 
Connection  in  consequence  of  that  Conference.  The  preachers  generally 
thought  that  in  all  probability  there  would  never  be  another  Conference  of 
that  kind,  at  which  all  the  preachers  in  connection  might  attend.  The  work 
was  spreading  through  all  the  United  States  and  the  different  Territories, 
and  was  likely  to  increase  more  and  more,  so  that  it  was  generally  thought 
that  this  Conference  would  adopt  some  permanent  regulations  which  would 
prevent  the  preachers  in  future  from  coming  together  in  a  General  Confer- 
ence.§  

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  4. 

t  In  reply  to  some  inquiries  of  Bishop  Morris,  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  in 
1858,  F.  S.  De  Hass  says,  "  We  are  happy  to  say  that  the  Minutes  are  not  entirely  lost,  and  at 
some  future  day  we  may  give  the  Minutes  of  these  two  important  Conferences  in  full."  So  far 
as  known,  he  has  never  done  so,  and  as  one  of  the  "  two  important  Conferences  "  is  an  alleged 
General  Conference  in  1788,  we  may  despair  of  Mr.  De  Hass's  possessing  any  Minutes  of  1792. 
JTltle-page,  DUdpline  of  1792;  Emory,  Hist,  of  Discipline,  p.  SS.    §  Hist.,  pp.  176,  177. 


17 


(257) 


258  The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


Bishop  Coke  was  just  in  time.  He  arrived  in  Baltimore 
at  9  P.M.,  Wednesday,  October  31:  the  next  morning  the 
General  Conference  convened.  Mr.  Asbury  and  the  preach- 
ers "had  almost  given  me  up,"  he  writes.  "Whilst  we 
were  sitting  in  the  room  at  Mr.  Rogers',  "  says  Asbury,  "  in 
came  Dr.  Coke,  of  whose  arrival  we  had  not  heard,  and 
whom  we  embraced  in  great  love."  * 

The  first  day  was  consumed  in  the  adoption  of  rules  of 
order,  a  precedent  faithfully  followed  ever  since.  One  of  the 
regulations  was,  "It  shall  take  two-thirds  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Conference  to  make  a  new  rule  [of  Discipline], 
or  abolish  an  old  one ;  but  a  majority  may  alter  or  amend 
any  rule."  A  business  committee  was  appointed  to  mature 
and  bring  forward  measures  for  the  action  of  the  Conference, 
with  the  idea  of  saving  time,  but,  as  its  debates  were  re- 
peated on  the  floor  of  the  House,  it  was  found  useless,  and 
first  enlarged,  and  then  dismissed;  when  "any  preacher," 
says  Lee,  "  was  at  liberty  to  bring  forward  any  motion." 
A  rule  of  debate  was,  "  That  each  person,  if  he  choose, 
shall  have  liberty  to  speak  three  times  on  each  motion." 

On  the  second  day,  Friday,  O'Kelly  introduced  his  his- 
toric resolution,  radically  modifying  the  appointing  power 
of  the  Bishops,  and  indirectly  reflecting  on  Asbury's  admin- 
istration.   It  was  framed  in  these  words: 

After  the  bishop  appoints  the  preachers  at  Conference  to  their  several 
circuits,  if  any  one  think  himself  injured  by  the  appointment,  he  shall  have 
liberty  to  appeal  to  the  Conference  and  state  his  objections;  and  if  the  Con- 
ference approve  his  objections,  the  bishop  shall  appoint  him  to  another  cir- 
cuit.! 

"  I  felt  awful  at  the  General  Conference,"  writes  Asbury, 
"  my  power  to  station  the  preachers  without  an  appeal,  was 
much  debated,  but  finally  carried  by  a  very  large  majority. 
Perhaps  a  new  bishop,  new  Conference,  and  new  laws, 
would  have  better  pleased  some.  .  .  .  Some  individuals 
among  the  preachers  having  their  jealousies  about  my  influ- 
ence in  the  Conference,  I  gave  the  matter  wholly  up  to  them, 


♦Journal,  II.  146:  Oct.  31,  1792.    |Lee,  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  p.  178. 


The  General  Conference  of  1792. 


259 


and  to  Dr.  Coke,  who  presided:  meantime  I  sent  them  the 
following  letter: 

"My  Dear  Brethren:  Let  my  absence  give  jou  no  pain — Dr.  Coke 
presides.  I  am  happily  excused  from  assisting  to  make  laws  by  which  my- 
self am  to  be  governed:  I  have  only  to  obey  and  execute.  I  am  happy  in 
the  consideration  that  I  never  stationed  a  preacher  through  enmity  or  as  a 
punishment.  I  have  acted  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  good  of  the  people, 
and  to  promote  the  usefulness  of  the  preachers.  Are  you  sure  that,  if  you 
please  yourselves,  the  people  will  be  as  fully  satisfied.''  They  often  say, 
'Let  us  have  such  a  preacher;'  and  sometimes,  'We  will  not  have  such  a 
preacher — we  will  sooner  pay  him  to  stay  at  home.'  Perhaps  I  must 
say,  '  His  appeal  forced  him  upon  you.'  I  am  one — yQ  are  many.  lam  as 
willing  to  serve  you  as  ever.  I  want  not  to  sit  in  any  man's  way.  I  scorn 
to  solicit  votes:  I  am  a  very  trembling  poor  creature  to  bear  praise  or  dis- 
praise. Speak  your  minds  freely;  but  remember,  you  are  only  making 
laws  for  the  present  time:  it  may  be,  that  as  in  some  other  things,  so  in  this, 
a  future  day  may  give  you  further  light. 

"  I  am  yours,  etc.,  Francis  Asbury."  * 

Under  the  presidency  of  Coke,  therefore,  with  Asbury 
deHcately  retiring  from  the  Conference  room,  and  ill  at  his 
lodgings,  the  first  great  General  Conference  debate,  on  a 
point  vital  to  episcopacy  and  itinerancy,  proceeded.  It  was 
led  by  O'Kelly,  Ivey,  Hull,  Garrettson,  and  Swift,  speaking 
for  the  adoption  of  the  resolution,  and  by  Willis,  Lee,  Mor- 
rell,  Everett,  and  Reed  in  opposition.!  Lee  declares,  "  the 
arguments,  for  and  against  the  proposal,  were  weighty  and 
handled  in  a  masterly  manner.  There  never  had  been  a 
subject  before  us  that  so  fully  called  forth  all  the  strength 
of  the  preachers."  He  gives  our  only  outline  of  the  parlia- 
mentary proceedings : 

A  large  majority  appeared  at  first  to  be  in  favor  of  the  motion.  But  at 
last  John  Dickins  moved  to  divide  the  question  thus:  i.  Shall  the  bishop 
appoint  the  preachers  to  the  circuits?  2.  Shall  a  preacher  be  allowed  an 
appeal.^  After  some  debate  the  dividing  of  the  question  was  carried.  The 
first  question  being  put,  it  was  carried  without  a  dissenting  voice.  But 
when  we  came  to  the  second  question,  "Shall  a  preacher  be  allowed  an  ap- 
peal.'" there  was  a  difficulty  started,  whether  this  was  to  be  considered  as  a 
new  rule,  or  only  an  amendment  of  an  old  one.  If  it  -was  a  new  rule,  it 
would  take  two-thirds  of  the  votes  to  carry  it.  After  a  considerable  debate 
it  was  agreed  by  vote  that  it  was  only  an  amendment  of  an  old  rule.  Of 
course  after  all  these  lengthy  debates  we  were  just  where  we  began,  and 


*  Journal,  II.  146,  147.   t  Colbert's  Journal 


26o  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


had  to  take  up  the  question  as  it  was  proposed  at  first.  By  dividing  the  ques- 
tion, atid  then  coming  back  to  where  we  were  at  first,  we  were  kept  on  the 
subject,  called  the  Appeal,  for  two  or  three  days.  On  Monday  we  began 
the  debate  afresh,  and  continued  it  through  the  day ;  and  at  night  we  went 
to  Otterbein's  church,  and  again  continued  it  till  near  bedtime,  when  the 
vote  was  taken,  and  the  motion  was  lost  by  a  large  majority.* 

The  Sunday  intervening  was  a  high  day.  In  the  morn- 
ing Coke  preached  a  "  delightful  sermon  "  on  the  Witness 
of  the  Spirit;  in  the  afternoon  O'Kelly  discoursed  on  "Lord, 
increase  our  faith;"  Henry  Willis  closed  at  night  with  an 
appropriate  text  from  the  Psalms. t 

As  Lee  supplies  us  with  the  parliamentary  details  of  the 
debate,  so  Thomas  Ware,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Con- 
ference, furnishes  us  with  a  resume  of  the  arguments  em- 
ployed : 

Had  O'Kelly's  proposition  been  differently  managed  it  might  possibly 
have  been  carried.  For  myself,  at  first  I  did  not  see  anything  very  objec- 
tionable in  it;  but  when  it  came  to  be  debated,  I  very  much  disliked  the 
spirit  of  those  who  advocated  it,  and  wondered  at  the  severity  in  which  the 
movers,  and  others  who  spoke  in  favor  of  it,  indulged  in  the  course  of  their 
remarks.  Some  of  them  said  that  it  was  a  shame  for  a  man  to  accept  of  such 
a  lordship,  much  more  to  claim  it ;  and  that  they  who  would  submit  to  this 
absolute  dominion  must  forfeit  all  claims  to  freedom,  and  ought  to  have 
their  ears  bored  through  with  an  awl,  and  to  be  fastened  to  their  master's 
door  and  become  slaves  for  life.  One  said  that  to  be  denied  such  an  appeal 
was  an  insult  to  his  understanding,  and  a  species  of  tyranny  to  which  others 
might  submit  if  they  chose,  but  for  his  part  he  must  be  excused  for  saying 
he  could  not.  The  advocates  of  the  other  side  were  more  dispassionate  and 
argumentative.  They  urged  that  Wesley,  the  father  of  the  Methodist  fami- 
ly, had  devised  the  plan,  and  deemed  it  essential  for  the  preservation  of  the 
itinerancy.  They  said  that,  according  to  the  showing  of  O'Kelly,  Wesley, 
if  he  were  alive,  ought  to  blush,  for  he  claimed  the  right  to  station  the 
preachers  to  the  day  of  his  death.  The  appeal,  it  was  argued,  was  rendered 
impracticable  on  account  of  the  many  serious  difficulties  with  which  it  was 
encumbered.  Should  one  preacher  appeal,  and  the  conference  say  his  ap- 
pointment should  be  altered,  the  bishop  must  remove  some  other  one  to 
make  him  room ;  in  which  case  the  other  might  complain  and  appeal  in  his 
turn;  and  then  again  the  first  might  appeal  from  the  new  appointment,  or 
others  whose  appointments  these  successive  alterations  might  interrupt. 

O'Kelly,  on  the  defeat  of  his  measure,  at  once  abandoned 
his  seat  in  the  Conference  and  his  place  among  the  Metho- 
dists.   Garrettson,  who  had  been  with  O'Kelly  in  the  pro- 


*  Short  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  p.  179.    t  Colbert's  Journal. 


The  General  Conference  of  1792. 


261 


posed  reform,  was  appointed  on  a  committee  to  wait  on  him 
and  a  few  other  recalcitrants,  to  urge  them  to  resume  their 
seats.  "  O' Kelly's  distress  was  so  great,"  he  says,  "on 
account  of  the  late  decision,  that  he  informed  us  by  letter 
that  he  no  longer  considered  himself  one  of  us.  This  gave 
great  grief  to  the  whole  Conference."  But  the  committee's 
labors  were  unavailing.    Lee  says: 

I  stood  and  looked  after  them  as  they  went  ofi,  and  observed  to  one  of 
the  preachers  that  I  was  sorry  to  see  the  old  man  go  oS  in  that  way,  for 
I  was  persuaded  he  would  not  be  quiet  long,  but  would  try  to  be  head  of 
some  party.  .  .  .  So  it  was,  James  O'Kelly  never  more  united  with  the 
Methodists. 

Among  those  who  left  with  him  was  William  McKendree, 
who  "obtained  liberty  of  the  Conference  to  return  home." 
His  whole  ministerial  life  had  been  passed  in  O'Kelly's 
district;  they  were  traveUng  companions  to  the  General 
Conference;  they  lodged  together  there,  and  "their  room 
became  the  place  for  the  meeting  of  Mr.  O'Kelly's  discon- 
tented friends."  Many  confused  consultations  occurred 
among  the  travelers  by  the  way,  until  the  old  gentleman  and 
his  youthful  protege  pursued  their  journey  homewards 
alone.  O'Kelly  then  fully  unfolded  his  scheme  to  have 
"a  republican,  no-slavery,  glorious  Church  I  Bishop  As- 
bury  was  a  pope ;  the  General  Conference  was  a  revolution- 
ary body;  the  Bishop  and  his  creatures  were  working  the 
ruin  of  the  Church  to  gratify  their  pride  and  ambition."  * 

Bishop  Asbury  met  the  Virginia  Conference  at  Manches- 
ter, November  26,  eleven  days  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
General  Conference.  Christmas  day,  1791,  he  had  or- 
dained William  McKendree,  elder :t  at  the  Manchester 
Conference,  the  young  man  "  sent  him  his  resignation  in 
writing,"  %  respectfully  declining  appointment  as  a  Metho- 
dist preacher.  He  soon  afterward,  however,  accepted  an 
invitation  to  travel  with  Bishop  Asbury.    They  calmly  and 

*  Paine,  Life  of  McKendree,  I.  138,  139. 

fThe  parchment  to  this  effect  is  in  the  possession  of  the  writer,  together 
with  those  of  his  ordination  as  deacon  and  bishop. 
J  Journal,  II.  148. 


262 


The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


fully  discussed  the  recent  upheavals,  and  the  better  influ- 
ence ended  in  McKendree's  reclamation. 

It  was  only  a  month's  suspension  of  an  itinerant  ministry  which  ended 
only  with  his  useful  and  holy  life.  This  shaking  up,  this  honest  doubt,  led 
him  to  study  the  whole  subject  closely,  and  McKendree  became  the  consti- 
tutional expounder  of  Methodism.  He  mastered  the  philosophy  as  well  as 
the  details  of  its  government,  and  was  prepared,  at  a  future  crisis,  to  stand 
in  the  breach  and  save  it  against  a  host  of  strong  men.* 

Of  O 'Kelly,  Bishop  Asbury  writes  to  Morrell,  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  General  Conference: 

I  believe  now  nothing  short  of  being  an  episcopos  was  his  first  aim.  His 
second  was  to  make  the  Council  independent  of  the  Bishop  and  General 
Conference,  if  they  would  canonize  his  writings.  This  could  not  be  done. 
His  next  step  was  with  the  authority  of  a  pope  to  forbid  me,  by  letter,  to  go 
one  step  farther  with  the  Council,  after  carrying  it  once  around  the  conti- 
nent and  through  the  first  Council,  which  ordered  me  to  go  round  and  know 
the  minds  of  the  brethren.  His  following  step  was  to  write  against  me  to 
Mr.  Wesley,  who  he  knew  was  disaffected  to  me,  because  I  did  not  merely 
force  the  American  Conference  to  accede  to  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment  of 
Brother  Whatcoat,  which  I  did  submit  to  Dr.  Coke  only  for  peace  with  our 
old  father.-]-  How  moved  he  then  to  make  himself  independent  of  me  and 
the  general  Connection,  and  dragged  in  the  little  doctor,  whom,  a  little  be- 
fore, he  would  have  banished  from  the  continent.  Then  he  stipulated  with 
me  through  the  doctor  to  let  him  stay  in  that  station,  and  consented  to  leave 
the  decision  to  a  General  Conference,  and  when  the  decision  went  against 
him,  went  away. 

In  the  eight  years  since  the  Christmas  Conference,  the 
«'  Form  of  Disciphne  had  been  changed  and  altered  in  so 
many  particulars,"  remarks  Lee,  "and  the  business  of  the 
Council  had  thrown  the  Connection  into  such  confusion 
that  we  thought  proper  at  this  Conference  to  take  under 
consideration  the  greater  part  of  the  Form  of  Discipline,  and 
either  abolish,  establish,  or  change  the  rules."  %  The  sec- 
tions were  distributed  into  three  chapters :  the  first,  includ- 
ing twenty-six  sections,  related  to  the  ministry;  the  second, 

*  McTyeire,  Hist,  of  Methodism,  p.  413. 

tCoke  testifies:  "When  T.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  met  in  Charleston,  T. 
Coke  informed  him  that  Mr.  Wesley  had  appointed  Richard  Whatcoat  as  a 
joint  Superintendent,  and  Mr.  Asbury  acquiesced  in  the  appointment.  T. 
Coke  proposed  the  appointment  to  the  Virginia  Conference,  and,  to  his 
great  pain  and  disappointment,  James  O'Kelly  most  strenuously  opposed  it." 

JCf.  Asbury's  Journal,  II.  147. 


The  General  Conference  0/1^^2. 


263 


including  eight  sections,  to  the  membership ;  and  the  third, 
including  ten  sections,  to  temporal  economy,  with  the  doc- 
trinal tracts  and  Offices.*  In  their  address,  the  Bishops  say, 
"  We  think  ourselves  obliged  frequently  to  view  and  review 
the  whole  order  of  our  Church,  always  aiming  at  perfection, 
standing  on  the  shoulders  of  those  who  have  lived  before  us, 
and  taking  advantage  of  our  former  selves." 

The  revision  of  the  Discipline  began  Tuesday  morning, 
November  6,t  immediately  after  the  decisive  vote  on  O'Kel- 
ly's  resolution  at  Otterbein's  Church  the  preceding  evening. 
It  was  determined  that  another  General  Conference  should 
be  held  four  years  later,  and  thus  this  body  became  the  per- 
manent organ  of  connectional  government  in  American 
Methodism.  As  a  mass  convention  of  the  entire  traveling 
ministry  its  powers  were  general,  supreme,  and  final.  The 
Conference  of  1796  was  to  be  composed  of  "  all  the  travel- 
ing preachers  who  shall  be  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of 
holding  the  Conference."  Thus  an  itinerant  of  two  years' 
standing  was  eligible  to  a  seat.  But  it  was  found  necessary 
gradually  to  decrease  the  membership  by  successive  restric- 
tions. In  1800,  each  member  must  "  have  traveled  four 
years;"  and  in  1804  it  was  provided  that  these  four  years 
should  date  from  the  time  of  reception  on  trial  by  an  An- 
nual Conference,  thus  cutting  off  any  antecedent  years  of 
employment  as  a  "  supply  "  under  the  elder.  %  In  1808  the 
Delegated  General  Conference  was  determined  upon. 

The  District  Conferences  are  appointed  to  be  held  annu- 
ally, the  time  to  be  fixed  by  the  bishop,  and  the  Conference 
to  include  "  not  fewer  than  three,  nor  more  than  twelve  " 
circuits.  The  germ  of  the  Annual  Conference,  composed 
of  many  districts,  appears,  however,  in  this,  that  the  bishop 
is  "authorized  to  unite  two  or  more  districts  together," 
provided  the  resulting  Conference  does  not  exceed  the  pre- 
scribed number  of  circuits.  The  order  of  business  includes 
eighteen  questions.    These  Annual  Conferences  are  called 

♦Contents,  Discipline,  1792;  Emory,  Hist,  of  Discipline,  p. 84.  | Colbert's 
Journal.    J  Emory,  Hist,  of  Discipline,  p.  iii. 


264  The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


District  Conferences  throughout  the  Discipline  of  1792,  but 
never  afterward.  From  1820  to  1836,  however,  this  name 
was  applied  to  the  conferences  of  local  preachers  for  each 
presiding  elder's  district.  In  1796,  the  "yearly  confer- 
ences" were  reduced  to  six,  each  including  several  districts, 
and  their  boundaries  were  fixed  for  the  first  time  by  the 
General  Conference. 

It  is  expressly  determined  that,  in  future,  a  bishop  shall 
be  constituted  "  by  the  election  of  the  General  Conference, 
and  the  laying  on  of  hands,"  etc.  Thus  this  business  is  re- 
moved permanently  from  the  province  of  the  yearly  confer- 
ences, and  the  difficulties  of  1787,  when  some  Conferences 
concurred,  and  others  refused  concurrence,  in  Whatcoat's 
nomination,  are  provided  against.  The  Bishops  are  made 
amenable  to  the  General  Conference  for  their  conduct,  and 
provision  is  also  made  for  the  trial  of  an  immoral  bishop  in 
the  interval  of  the  General  Conference. 

In  1792  the  office  and  title  of  presiding  elder  appear  for 
the  first  time  in  the  DiscipHne.  "  Such  an  order  of  elders," 
says  Lee,  "  had  never  been  regularly  established  before. 
They  had  been  appointed  by  the  bishop  for  several  years ; 
but  it  was  a  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  preachers  whether  such 
power  belonged  to  him.  The  General  Conference  now  de- 
termined that  there  should  be  presiding  elders,  and  that 
they  should  be  chosen,  stationed,  and  changed  by  the 
bishop,"  provided  no  elder  should  preside  in  the  same  dis- 
trict more  than  four  years  successively.*  The  solemnity 
and  dignity  of  their  ordination,  together  with  the  smallness 
of  their  number  and  the  commanding  influence  which,  in 
most  instances,  they  speedily  acquired  in  their  districts,  gave 
rise  to  a  doubt  of  the  bishop's  power  to  control  or  remove 
them.  O'Kelly's  case  probably  influenced  the  General 
Conference  decisively  in  its  present  action.  He  had  moved 
"to  make  himself  independent  of  Asbury  and  the  general 
Connection"  and  had  "stipulated"  with  Asbury,  through 
Dr.  Coke,  "  to  let  him  stay  in  that  station;"  but  had  "  con- 


*Lee,  Hist.,  p.  183;  Discipline,  1792,  p.  19;  Emory,  Hist,  of  Disc,  pp.  126,  127. 


The  General  Conference  of  1792. 


265 


sented  to  leave  the  decision  to  a  General  Conference." 
He  had  traveled  the  same  district  ever  since  his  ordination 
in  1784,  and  had  been  stationed  in  that  region  for  some 
years  before.  The  disadvantages  in  his  case  doubtless  led 
the  General  Conference  to  place  the  presiding  elder,  like 
other  preachers,  at  the  disposal  of  the  bishops,  to  constitute 
him,  in  a  special  sense,  the  bishop's  deputy  and  representa- 
tive, and  to  Hmit  his  term  of  office  in  a  given  district.  The 
duties  of  this  officer  have  been  before  enumerated.  "  If  the 
episcopate  has  been  the  right  arm,"  says  Stevens,  "  the  pre- 
siding eldership  has  been  the  left  arm  of  the  Church's  dis- 
ciplinary administration." 

Provision  was  made  for  the  trial  of  preachers  for  immo- 
rality, improper  conduct,  and  heresy,  for  arbitration  between 
members,  and  for  the  expulsion  of  members  convicted  of 
sowing  dissensions,  by  inveighing  against  doctrines  or  dis- 
cipline. The  right  and  order  of  appeal  from  a  lower  to  a 
higher  court  were,  also,  secured.  The  order  of  public  wor- 
ship was  prescribed,  without  any  reference  to  Wesley's  Lit- 
urgy, which  had  now  fallen  into  disuse. 

The  Conference  adjourned  after  a  two  weeks'  session  on 
Thursday,  November  15.  William  Colbert  and  James 
Thomas  were  solemnly  ordained  elders  the  day  before. 
After  the  conclusion  of  business  on  Thursday,  Coke 
preached  on  "pure  religion  and  undefiled."  "A  solemn 
awe  rested  upon  the  congregation,"  writes  Coke,  "the 
meeting  was  continued  till  about  midnight."  He  departed 
with  the  highest  estimate  of  the  abiUties  and  consecration  of 
the  American  itinerants: 

We  continued  our  Conference  [he  says]  for  fifteen  days.  I  had  always 
entertained  very  high  ideas  of  the  piety  and  zeal  of  the  American  preach- 
ers, and  of  the  considerable  abilities  of  many;  but  I  had  no  expectation,  I 
confess,  that  the  debates  would  be  carried  on  in  so  very  masterly'  a  manner; 
so  that  on  every  question  of  importance  the  subject  seemed  to  be  considered 
in  every  possible  light.  Throughout  the  whole  of  the  debates  they  consid- 
ered themselves  as  the  servants  of  the  people,  and  therefore  never  lost  sight 
of  them  on  any  question.  Indeed,  the  single  eye,  and  the  spirit  of  humility, 
which  were  manifested  by  the  preachers  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Con- 
ference, were  extremely  pleasing. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1 796. 

THE  Second  Quadrennial  General  Conference  met  in 
Baltimore,  Thursday,  October  20,  1796;  though  the 
preceding  Conference  had  inserted  in  the  Discipline  that  this 
session  should  begin  November  i.*  The  change  of  date  was, 
however,  authorized  by  the  Annual  Conferences. f  Bishop 
Coke  arrived  from  Europe  two  days  before  the  opening  and 
Bishop  Asbury  joined  him  the  next  day.  "About  a  hun- 
dred preachers,"  he  says,  "were  met  for  General  Confer- 
ence. .  .  The  Conference  rose  on  Thursday,  the  3d  of 
November:  what  we  have  done  is  printed."  t  "We  pre- 
sent to  you  in  a  separate  tract  from  our  form  of  discipline 
the  result  of  our  deliberations,"  §  say  the  Bishops  in  an  ad- 
dress to  the  Church  on  behalf  of  the  General  Conference, 
thus,  once  more,  affording  an  intimation  that  the  Minutes  of 
1792  had  not  been  published  apart  from  the  Discipline. 
The  sole  legislative  prerogative  of  the  General  Conference, 
in  contrast  with  the  ordinary  executive  business  of  the  Year- 
ly Conferences,  under  the  laws  prescribed  for  them,  is,  in 
this  same  prefatory  address,  brought  out  clearly:  "We 
have,  therefore,  on  a  former  occasion  [1792]  confined  solely 
to  the  General  Conference  the  work  of  revising  our  form  of 
discipline,  reserving  for  the  Yearly  Conferences  the  common 
business  of  the  connexion,  as  directed  b}'-  the  form."|l 

According  to  Lee,  the  number  present  increased  to  a  hun- 
dred and  twenty.  The  district  bodies  disappear,  and  the 
General  Conference  for  the  first  time  defines  the  boundaries 
of  the  Annual  Conferences,  ordaining  six  at  this  session: 

♦Discipline,  1792,  p.  15;  Emory,  Hist.,  p.  iii.  f  Minutes,  ed.  i8i3,p.  162. 
JJournal,  II.  267.   §  Discipline,  1797,  p.  59;  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  7.    ||  Dis- 
cipline, 1797,  pp.  59,  60;  Gen.  Conf .  Journals,  I.  7. 
(266) 


The  General  Conference  of  jjgO. 


267 


New  England,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Virginia,  South 
Carolina,  and  Western.  The  Bishops,  however,  were  em- 
powered to  create  others  if  necessary.*  The  "chartered 
fund  "  is  estabUshed.t  There  had  been  nothing  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  for  more  than 
ten  years,  since  the  Conferences  of  1785  annulled  the  legis- 
lation of  the  Christmas  Conference,  except  the  General 
Rule,  of  uncertain  parentage,  inserted  (some  say  "interpo- 
lated") in  1789.  This  General  Conference  asked  "What 
regulations  shall  be  made  for  the  extirpation  of  the  crj-ing 
evil  of  African  slavery?"  and  enacted  the  following  elab- 
orate legislation: 

1.  We  declare  that  we  are  more  than  ever  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of 
the  African  slavery  which  still  exists  in  these  United  States,  and  do  most  ear- 
nestly recommend  to  the  yearly  Conferences,  quarterly  meetings,  and  to 
those  who  have  the  oversight  of  districts  and  circuits,  to  be  exceedingly 
cautious  what  persons  they  admit  to  official  stations  in  our  Church;  and, 
in  the  case  of  future  admission  to  official  stations,  to  require  such  security 
of  those  who  hold  slaves,  for  the  emancipation  of  them,  immediately  or 
gradually,  as  the  laws  of  the  states  respectively  and  the  circumstances  of 
the  case  will  admit.  And  we  do  fulh-  authorize  all  the  yearly  Conferences 
to  make  whatever  regulations  they  judge  proper,  in  the  present  case,  re- 
specting the  admission  of  persons  to  official  stations  in  our  Church. 

2.  N'o  slaveholder  shall  be  received  into  our  society  till  the  preacher  who 
has  the  oversight  of  the  circuit  has  spoken  to  him  freely  and  faithfully  on 
the  subject  of  slavery. 

3.  Every  member  of  the  society  who  sells  a  slave  shall  immediately,  aft- 
er full  proof,  be  excluded  the  society.  And  if  any  member  of  our  society 
purchase  a  slave,  the  ensuing  quarterly  meeting  shall  determine  on  the  num- 
ber of  vears  in  which  the  slave  so  purchased  would  work  out  the  price  of  his 
purchase.  And  the  person  so  purchasing  shall,  immediately  after  such  de- 
termination, execute  a  legal  instrument  for  the  manumission  of  such  slave 
at  the  expiration  of  the  term  determined  by  the  quarterly  meeting.  And 
in  default  of  his  executing  such  instrument  of  manumission,  or  on  his  refus- 
al to  submit  his  case  to  the  judgment  of  the  quarterly  meeting,  such  mem- 
ber shall  be  excluded  the  society.  Provided,  also,  that  in  the  case  of  a  fe- 
male slave,  it  shall  be  inserted  in  the  aforesaid  instrument  of  manumission, 
that  all  her  children  who  shall  be  born  during  the  years  of  her  servitude, 
shall  be  free  at  the  following  times,  namely :  every  female  child  at  the  age  of 
twenty-one,  and  every  male  child  at  the  age  of  twenty-five.  Nevertheless, 
if  the  member  of  our  society,  executing  the  said  instrument  of  manumission, 
judge  it  proper,  he  may  fix  the  times  of  manumission  of  the  children  of  the 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  ii.   ^ Ibid  ,  I.  20-22. 


268 


The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


female  slaves  before  mentioned,  at  an  earlier  age  than  that  which  is  pre- 
scribed above. 

4.  The  preachers  and  other  members  of  our  society  are  requested  to  con- 
sider the  subject  of  negro  slavery  with  deep  attention  till  the  ensuing  Gen- 
eral Conference:  and  that  they  impart  to  the  General  Conference,  through 
the  medium  of  the  yearly  conferences,  or  otherwise,  any  important  thoughts 
upon  the  subject,  that  the  Conference  may  have  full  light,  in  order  to  take 
further  steps  toward  the  eradicating  this  enormous  evil  from  that  part  of  the 
church  of  God  to  which  they  are  united.* 

At  the  request  of  the  General  Conference,  Coke  and  As- 
bury  appended  their  "  Notes  on  the  DiscipUne,"  to  the  edi- 
tion of  1798.  "  It  may  be  worthy  of  remark,"  says  Emory, 
"  that  this  is  almost  the  only  section  upon  which  the  bishops 
make  no  notes."  t 

On  temperance  this  Conference  was  also  decided: 

If  any  member  of  our  society  retail  or  give  spirituous  liquors,  and  any- 
thing disorderly  be  transacted  under  his  roof  on  this  account,  the  preacher 
who  has  the  oversight  of  the  circuit  shall  proceed  against  him  as  in  the  case 
of  other  immoralities,  f 

Asbury  says,  "At  the  Conference,  there  was  a  stroke  aimed 
at  the  president  eldership,"  §  but  nothing  of  its  nature  can 
be  gathered  from  the  official  Journal  or  contemporary  sources. 
The  election  of  presiding  elders  by  the  Annual  Conferences 
became  a  subject  of  debate  in  the  General  Conference  of  1800 
and  continued  a  burning  question  until  1828,  when  it  was 
finally  put  to  rest. 

But  aborted  measures  are  not  recorded.  The  Journal 
says  nothing  of  "strengthening  the  episcopacy"  at  this 
Conference,  yet  this  question  furnished  matter  for  earnest 
and  protracted  debate.  At  first,  a  committee  was  raised,  to 
which  the  subject  was  referred ;  but  objections  were  urged, 
and  it  was  dissolved.  "They  agreed  to  a  committee," 
says  Asbury,  "and  then  complained;  upon  which  we  dis- 
solved ourselves."  ||  Pending  the  discussion,  Asbury  stated 
to  the  Conference  his  fears  of  an  imprudent  selection  and 

*Gen.  Conf.  Jour.,I.  22,23;  Disc,  1797, pp.  76,  77;  Emory, Hist.,  pp. 275,  276. 

I  Hist,  of  Discipline,  p.  276,  footnote. 

J  Discipline,  1797,  p.  81;  Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  I.  28. 
§Journal,  II.  267. 

II  Ibid.,  II.  267. 


The  General  Conference  of  lygd. 


expressed  a  desire  for  a  colleague  established  in  the  doctrines 
and  discipline  of  Methodism.  "This  threw  a  damper  on 
all  present,  and  seemed  to  paralyze  the  whole  business." 
The  resolution  before  the  Conference  was  then  amended, 

to  strengthen  the  episcopacy  in  a  way  which  should  be 
agreeable  to  Mr.  Asbury."  It  was  then  almost  unanimous- 
ly requested  of  Mr.  Asbury  to  make  the  selection  himself, 
which  he  appeared  very  unwilling  to  do.  At  this  juncture, 
Coke,  who  occupied  the  chair,  "begged  that  the  business 
might  be  laid  over  till  the  afternoon."  "  When  we  met  in 
the  afternoon,"  continues  Jesse  Lee,  "the  doctor  offered 
himself  to  us,  if  we  saw  cause  to  take  him;  and  promised  to 
serve  us  in  the  best  manner  he  could,  and  to  be  entirely  at 
the  disposal  of  his  American  brethren,  and  to  live  and  die 
among  them."  * 

Of  the  debate  which  followed,  the  Rev.  John  Kobler,  who 
was  present,  gives  an  account,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee, 
written,  however,  as  late  as  1843: 

This  unexpected  offer,  and  to  many  an  unwelcome  one,  opened  the  way 
to  a  large  and  spirited  debate.  A  number  present  were  warmly  in  favor  of 
accepting  the  offer,  and  as  many  were  against  it.  Mr.  Lee  was  decidedly 
against  and  he  w-armly  opposed  it.  In  fact,  I  believe  he  never  liked  the 
Doctor  anyway,  from  his  first  entering  among  us  in  1784,  to  the  last.  He 
could  not  endure  the  absolute  spirit  and  overbearing  disposition  of  Dr.  Coke, 
as  a  high  officer  in  the  Church.  Mr.  Lee  was  a  candid  man,  and  in  no  wise 
disposed  to  give  flattering  titles  to  any,  and,  as  such,  he  opposed  the  offer 
with  great  zeal  and  eloquence  from  first  to  last.  He  was  a  man  of  great  pen- 
etration, and  could  see  through  circumstances  and  read  men  well.  He  was 
the  best  speaker  in  the  Conference.  He  first  showed  that  there  were  several 
members  in  our  Connection  who  were  well  qualified  to  fill  the  office,  having 
been  long  and  well  proved;  who  were  natives  of  the  country,  one  of  our- 
selves, and  were  well  acquainted  with  the  rules  by  which  our  civil  and  reli- 
gious privileges  were  regulated.  But  his  most  powerful  argument,  I  well 
remember,  was  this:  "That  the  doctor  was  a  thoroughbred  Englishman; 
and  an  entire  stranger  abroad  in  the  country  (out  of  the  Church);  that  the 
deep-rooted  prejudice  against  British  oppression,  which  by  our  arduous 
Revolutionary  struggle  we  had  so  recently  thrown  off,  still  hung  heavily, 
and  was  operating  powerfully  upon  the  public  mind;  and  that  to  select  a 
high  officer  to  govern  our  Church  from  that  distant  and  tyrannizing  nation, 
whose  spirit  and  practice  were  held  in  abhorrence  by  the  American  people, 
would,  in  his  judgment,  be  a  very  impolitic  step,  and  would  tend  to  raise  the 


"Hist,  of  Methodists,  pp.  247,  248;  cf.  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee,  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  325-330. 


270  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


suspicions  and  prejudices  of  the  public  against  us  as  a  Church.  He  further 
said  he  had  frequently  heard  the  same  objections  made  against  us  as  an 
American  Church  for  having  a  native  of  England  (Bishop  Asbury)  at 
our  head;  and  now  to  add  another,  who,  in  many  respects,  had  not  the  ex- 
perience, prudence,  nor  skill  in  government  that  Bishop  Asbury  had,  would 
operate  very  materially  against  the  best  interests  of  the  Church." 

The  debate  lasted  two  days,  and  was  incessant;  and  during  the  time  the 
Doctor  was  secluded  from  the  Conference  room.  Mr.  Lee  and  his  party 
evidently  had  the  better  of  the  cause  in  debate,  and  were  gaining  confidence 
continually.  In  one  of  his  speeches,  Mr.  Lee  said  he  was  confident  the 
Doctor  would  not  fill  the  high  office,  and  perform  the  vast  amount  of  labor 
attached  to  it;  that  England  was  his  home,  his  friends  and  best  interests 
were  there,  and  without  doubt  he  would  spend  m.ost  of  his  time  in  going  to 
and  fro  between  England  and  America,  and  leave  the  Episcopacy  and  the 
Connection  as  void  of  help  as  they  were  before.  When  Bishop  Asbury  saw 
how  the  matter  was  likely  to  go,  he  rose  from  the  chair,  and  with  much  ap- 
parent feeling  said:  "  If  we  reject  him  it  will  be  his  ruin,  for  the  British 
Conference  will  certainly  know  of  it,  and  it  will  sink  him  vastly  in  their  es- 
timation." Here  the  debate  ended.  I  well  remember  during  the  debate,  the 
Doctor  came  into  Conference  and  made  a  speech.  Among  other  things,  he 
said,  "  he  never  was  cast  upon  such  a  sea  of  uncertainty  before."  This,  I  ex- 
pect, made  Bishop  Asbury  say,  '■'■If  we  reject  him,  it  ivill  be  his  ruin."  The  dis- 
cussion was  now  stopped,  and  the  whole  matter  submitted  (though  by 
many  with  reluctance)  to  Bishop  Asbury's  judgment — for  they  had,  pre- 
viously to  the  Doctor's  offer,  urged  him  to  make  his  own  selection.  I  have 
often  wondered  at  Bishop  Asbury's  implicit  confidence  in  Dr.  Coke.  Wheth- 
er he  felt  himself  bound,  in  conscience,  to  submit  to  one  who  ordained  him 
to  the  office  of  Superintendent,  or  whether  it  was  because  he  was  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's representative,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  say.  But  the  Doctor's  conduct,  in  a 
short  time,  fully  proved  that  Mr.  Lee's  opinions  of  his  course  were  found- 
ed in  a  wise  discrimination  of  character — for  in  a  few  months  he  went  to 
England,  and  never  appeared  among  us  till  four  years  afterwards.* 

Jesse  Lee  says,  however,  that  "the  Conference  at  length 
agreed  to  the  Doctor's  proposal"  and  concluded  that  they 
could  do  with  two  bishops.  The  Doctor  then  gave  the  fol- 
lowing paper  to  the  Conference: 

I  offer  myself  to  my  American  brethren  entirely  to  their  service,  all  I  am 
and  have,  with  my  talents  and  labors  in  every  respect,  without  any  mental 
reservation  whatsoever,  to  labor  among  them,  and  to  assist  Bishop  Asbury; 
not  to  station  the  preachers  at  any  time  when  he  is  present,  but  to  exereise 
all  episcopal  duties,  when  I  hold  a  Conference  in  his  absence,  and  by  his 
consent,  and  to  visit  the  West  Indies  and  France  when  there  is  an  opening, 
and  I  can  be  spared. 

(Signed)  Thomas  Coke. 

Conference  Room,  Baltimore,  October  27,  1796.! 


*  Letter  in  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  327,  328.   f  Lee,  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  p.  248. 


The  General  Conference  of  lygd. 


271 


"  Bishop  Coke  was  cordially  received,"  writes  Asbury, 
"  as  my  friend  and  colleague,  to  be  wholly  for  America,  un- 
less a  way  should  be  opened  to  France."  * 

Let  us  unravel,  if  we  may,  this  somewhat  tangled  skein. 
Coke  had  left  America  in  May  1791,  on  hearing  the  news 
of  Wesley's  death.  After  an  absence  of  eighteen  months, 
he  returns  barely  in  time  for  the  General  Conference  of 
1792,  in  the  appointment  of  which  he  had  exercised  a  deci- 
sive influence.  In  December  following  he  sails  for  the  West 
Indies,  and  does  not  again  reach  America  until  the  eve  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1796.  Throughout  the  quadren- 
nium  he  had  been  absent  in  the  West  Indies,  England,  Ire- 
land, and  Holland.  He  had  been  of  no  assistance  to  Bish- 
op Asbury  in  the  labors  of  the  general  superintendency, 
though  the  work  was  extending  and  Asbury's  health  failing. 
Yet  throughout  this  period,  in  the  Minutes  of  1792,  1793, 
1794,  and  1795,  the  question  and  answer  are  uniform, 
"  Ques.  6.  Who  have  been  elected  by  the  unanimous  suf- 
frages of  the  General  Conference  to  superintend  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  America?  Ans.  Thomas  Coke, 
Francis  Asbury."  t  So,  indeed,  the  question  and  answer 
had  stood,  without  qualification,  since  1788,  except  that  in 
this  year  the  question  read,  "Who  are  the  Bishops  of  our 
Church  for  the  United  States?  "  t  So  this  question  and  an- 
swer continued  to  stand  until  1800  §  when  it  is  changed  to 
"Who  are  the  Bishops?"  and  the  name  of  Richard  What- 
coat  is  added.  II  Thus  the  Minutes  read  until  1806. H  In 
1807,  Richard  Whatcoat  having  died,  his  name  is  dropped, 
and  the  question  is  changed  to,  "  Who  are  the  Superintend- 
ents and  Bishops?"  and,  as  in  the  beginning,  the  answer  is, 
"  Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury."  **  In  1808,  the  answer 
is,  "  Francis  Asbury,  William  McKendree,"  and  this  note  is 
appended,  "  Dr.  Coke,  at  the  request  of  the  British  Confer- 

*Journal,  II.  267.  -f  Minutes,  Ed.  of  1813,  pp.  112,  124,  137,  152. 

Xlbtd.,  pp.  60,  77,  89,  100.       %Ib{d.,  pp.  169,  188,  304,  220. 
II  Ibid.,  p.  236.  II  Ibid.,  pp.  253,  271,  288,  308,  332,  361. 

**Ibid.,  p.  385. 


272  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


ence,  and  by  consent  of  our  General  Conference,  resides  in 
Europe:  he  is  not  to  exercise  the  office  of  Superintendent 
among  us  in  the  United  States,  until  he  be  recalled  by  the 
General  Conference,  or  by  all  the  Annual  Conferences  re- 
spectively." *  This  question,  answer,  and  note  continued 
unchanged  in  the  Minutes  of  1809,  1810,  1811,  1812,  and 
1813,  until  Bishop  Coke's  death  in  1814.!  This  completes 
the  official  record  of  Coke's  episcopate,  so  far  as  the  Min- 
utes give  information. 

Let  us  turn,  now,  to  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. When  Coke  returned  to  the  General  Conference 
of  1796,  after  an  absence  of  nearly  four  years,  he  was  ac- 
corded, apparently  without  question,  his  place  in  the  chair 
as  one  of  the  presidents  of  the  Conference,  and  was  presid- 
ing when  the  question  of  strengthening  the  episcopacy  was 
raised.  His  name  precedes  Asbury's  in  the  signatures  at- 
tached to  the  address  prefixed  to  the  Journal.!  His  name 
alone  is  signed  to  the  Journal  of  1800  as  President  of  the 
Conference. §  The  action  of  this  Conference  with  regard 
to  Dr.  Coke  will  presently  come  under  review.  In  1804, 
his  name  is  appended  to  the  Journal,  with  those  of  Asbury 
and  Whatcoat,  but  stands  last.||  This  was  the  last  General 
Conference  at  which  Bishop  Coke  was  present:  by  an  al- 
most unanimous  vote,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  the  Ameri- 
cans maintained  their  claim  upon  him.  In  1808  the  Gener- 
al Conference  ordered  the  note,  before  noticed,  to  be  insert- 
ed in  the  Minutes:  this  stood,  as  we  have  seen,  until  the 
Doctor's  death. 

After  this  epitome  of  the  official  history  of  Dr.  Coke's 
episcopate,  we  return  to  the  circumstances  of  1796.  Before 
leaving  England  to  attend  this  General  Conference,  an  Afri- 
can mission,  projected  by  the  Doctor,  in  Sierra  Leone,  had 
proved  unsuccessful,  and  "  rendered  his  last  attendance  at 
the  English  Conference  far  from  being  pleasing.  These 

*Minutes,  ed.  of  1813,  p.  411.  ■\  Ibid.,  pp.  442,  471,  504,  540,  575. 

JGen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  8.  %Ibid.,  I.  46. 

II  Ibid.,  I.  69. 


The  General  Conjerence  of  1796. 


273 


circumstances,  connected  with  a  hope  of  being  more  exten- 
sively useful  in  America,  than  he  could  be  in  England, 
rendered  it  somewhat  doubtful  on  his  departure,  whether 
he  should  not  take  up  his  final  abode  with  his  friends  on 
the  continent."  *  These  w^ere  the  circumstances,  so  far  as 
his  British  connections  and  obligations  were  concerned, 
under  which  Coke  made  a  tender  of  himself  to  the  Gener- 
al Conference,  and  "was  cordially  received,"  as  Asbury 
records. 

But  why  were  a  tender  of  his  ser\'ices  and  an  acceptance 
of  them  by  the  Conference  necessary?  Was  not  Coke  a 
bishop,  entitled,  without  challenge,  to  exercise  the  duties 
and  privileges  of  his  office?  Undoubtedly  he  was.  At  this 
very  juncture,  he  was  occupying  the  president's  chair  in  a 
General  Conference,  though  he  had  been  absent  from  the 
United  States  the  four  years  preceding.  From  1784  to  1804 
he  presided  in  every  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  We  know  of  no  instance  from  1787, 
when  some  of  his  acts  were  first  called  in  question,  to  1796, 
when  he  did  not  exercise  all  the  powers  of  a  bishop  at  any 
Annual  Conference  at  which  he  was  present.  Asbury  tells 
us  expressly  in  his  letter  to  Benson,  that,  on  such  occasions, 
he  was  accustomed  to  yield  the  chair  to  Coke  whenever  he 
was  present.  But,  in  answer  to  such  questions  as  those 
suggested  above,  tacitly  if  not  expressly  raised,  it  is  usual 
with  not  a  few  writers  to  plunge  into  an  abstract  discussion 
of  the  mutual  relations  of  the  General  Conference  and  the 
Episcopacy,  and  to  generalize  on  Coke's  case  until  the  su- 
premacy of  the  General  Conference  and  the  dependence  of 
the  bishops  upon  its  authority  are  established  to  their  satis- 
faction. Upon  the  merits  of  this  discussion  there  is  nothing 
in  Coke's  situation  at  this  juncture,  or  in  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1796,  that  calls  us  to  enter.  To  allay 
the  sensitiveness  of  any  critical  or  doubting  reader,  however, 
it  may  be  conceded,  once  for  all,  without  debate,  that  the 
General  Conference,  as  then  constituted,  had  unHmited 


18 


*Dre\v,  Life  of  Coke,  p.  273. 


274  '^^^  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


power  to  govern  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  could 
amend  or  annul  the  Articles  of  Religion  or  the  General 
Rules;  leave  the  place  hitherto  occupied  by  them  vacant,  or 
substitute  others  in  their  stead.  It  could  abolish  episcopacy 
or  the  presiding  eldership  and  ordain  government  by  pres- 
bytery or  on  the  congregational  plan.  It  could  terminate  its 
owm  existence,  and  organize  a  Council  or  any  other  organ 
of  administration  which  its  wisdom  might  suggest.  It  could 
accept  the  rule  and  supremacy  of  the  British  Conference,  as 
there  is  evidence  that  Asbury  feared  might  be  done,  in  the 
event  of  his  own  death  before  the  election  of  another  bishop. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  why  it  could  not  have  divided  the 
Church,  substituting  two  or  more  General  Conferences, 
with  mutually  exclusive  jurisdictions,  in  its  own  room,  had 
that  course  been  deemed  expedient,  since  the  body  was 
composed  of  the  traveling  ministry  of  the  Church,  with  su- 
preme and  unlimited  powers,  and  there  was  nowhere  lodged 
any  authority  to  offer  any  legal  check  to  the  execution  of  its 
decisions,  which  must  have  been  carried  out,  unless  the 
laity  had  refused  compliance.  It  was  a  mass  convention  of 
the  entire  ministry  of  the  Church  in  full  connection.  There 
are  no  terms  too  broad  or  too  high  to  express  the  unlimited 
powers  which  belonged  to  this  body,  and  which  continued  to 
belong  to  it  until  1808.  But  it  is  not  writing  history  to  can- 
vass Dr.  Coke's  case  at  length,  as  a  recent  distinguished 
historian  has  done,  and  then  declare  unexpectedly,  "  This 
power  [of  deposition  of  a  General  Superintendent  without 

trial]  was  asserted  by  the  General  Conference  of   ,"' 

naming  a  Delegated  Conference  which  assembled  nearly  half 
a  century  later.  It  is  a  question  whether  the  General  Con- 
ference alluded  to  exercised  any  such  power;  but  that  is 
not  the  present  issue.  It  is  freely  allowed  that  the  General 
Conference  of  1796  possessed  all  the  powers  enumerated 
above ;  but  it  will  become  manifest,  beyond  contradiction, 
that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  exercised  none  of  them. 

In  their  notes  to  the  Disciphne  ordained  by  this  very 
General  Conference,  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  say,  "  they 


The  General  Conference  of  ijg6. 


275 


[the  Bishops]  are  perfectly  dependent;  that  their  power, 
their  usefulness,  themselves,  are  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the 
General  Conference."*  The  principle  of  the  absolute 
supremacy  of  the  Quadrennial  General  Conferences  from 
1792  to  1808,  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  is  undisputed  and  indisputable.  The  Bishops  were 
foremost  in  the  acknowledgment  of  this  supremacy  in  terms 
the  most  unqualified. 

Having  unreser\-edly  conceded  this  point,  let  us  now  con- 
tinue our  inquiry  as  to  what  was  actually  done  in  Bishop 
Coke's  case  by  the  General  Conference  of  1796.  The  un- 
questioned recognition  of  his  episcopal  character  at  this 
time  has  already  been  noticed.  In  view  of  Dr.  Coke's  rela- 
tions to  his  brethren  in  Europe,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
his  tender  of  himself  to  the  General  Conference  was  both 
natural  and  sincere.  In  view  of  his  relations  to  his  breth- 
ren in  America,  this  tender,  if  he  found  it  possible  at  length 
to  give  his  entire  services  to  this  continent,  was  highly  expe- 
dient. It  was,  indeed,  necessary  to  the  intelligent  action  of 
the  General  Conference  on  the  question  of  strengthening 
the  episcopacy,  then  before  the  body.  Dr.  Coke  had  nev- 
er been  able  to  pledge  his  entire  time  to  the  Americans 
since  his  first  acceptance  as  one  of  their  bishops  in  1784. 
During  the  five  years  and  a  half  since  his  departure  in  the 
spring  of  1791,  he  had  been  able  to  spend  but  two  months 
in  America.  Notwithstanding  these  numerous  interruptions 
and  these  protracted  absences,  his  episcopal  character  was 
still  recognized.  He  had  now  come,  as  he  did  four  years 
before,  to  attend  the  General  Conference.  The  natural 
supposition  of  the  Americans  was  that  he  intended  to  re- 
turn to  Europe,  as  before,  shortly  after  the  adjournment  of 
the  Conference.  They  knew  nothing  of  the  temporary  em- 
barrassment of  his  relations  with  the  English  Conference, 
growing  out  of  the  failure  of  his  African  mission.  There 
was  no  way  of  their  knowing  that  his  entire  services  were 
available,  and  at  their  disposal,  unless  he  informed  them  of 


*  Discipline,  179S,  pp.  43,  44;  Emory,  Hist,  of  the  Discipline,  p.  291. 


276  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 

it.  The  question  under  discussion,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind, 
was  not  Coke's  episcopal  character,  but  the  strengthening 
of  the  episcopacy,  in  view  of  Asbury's  increasing  infirmities 
and  the  enlarging  Church,  and,  particularly,  as  Bishop  Coke 
was  nearly  continuously  absent  from  the  country,  and  thus 
unable  to  render  aid.  During  these  five  and  a  half  years  of 
absence,  Coke's  position  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
had  not  been  for  a  moment  forgotten  or  ignored.  In  all  the 
official  publications  of  the  Church,  it  was  formally  and  con- 
stantly recognized,  equally  with  Asbury's.  On  his  return, 
he  assumes  a  rightful  presidency  in  the  General  Conference. 
Instead  of  treating  him  with  any  shade  of  discourtesy,  in- 
quiring why  he  should  not  surrender  an  office  whose  duties 
were  imperative  but  which  he  was  unable  to  discharge,  or 
handling  him  in  any  other  way,  as  this  autocratic  assembly 
might  have  done,  the  Conference  uniformly  bestowed  upon 
him  the  most  distinguished  consideration.  He  was  permitted 
liberties  with  respect  to  absence  and  foreign  service,  on  ac- 
count of  his  unique  relation  to  Ecumenical  Methodism,  that 
would  not  be  tolerated  in  a  General  Superintendent  of  the 
present  day,  who,  "if  he  cease  from  traveling  without  the 
consent  of  the  General  Conference,  shall  not  thereafter  ex- 
ercise the  Episcopal  office  in  our  Church." 

We  have  cited  Mr.  Kobler's  letter  in  full,  but  writing 
nearly  half  a  century  after  the  events  he  describes,  his  testi- 
mony is  of  low  evidential  value,  and  he  is  clearly  mistaken 
in  some  of  his  recollections.  This  can  be  shown,  in  some 
points,  from  general  history;  while  contemporary  sources 
are  uniform  as  to  the  unanimity  and  cheerfulness  with  which 
the  Conference  accepted  Bishop  Coke's  services.  Mr.  Kob- 
ler  says  the  Doctor  "went  to  England  and  never  appeared 
among  us  till  four  years  afterward."  When  the  General 
Conference  adjourned,  Coke  remained  in  America  until 
Feb.  6,  1797,  performing  episcopal  labors  according  to  his 
agreement  with  the  General  Conference  and  much  to  the 
relief  of  Asbury.  The  two  bishops  attended  together  the 
Virginia  and  South  Carolina  Conferences,  and  Coke,  doing 


The  General  Conference  of  1796.  277 

much  preaching  by  the  way,  was  in  his  happiest  mood  until 
the  day  he  sailed  from  Charleston.  August  28,  following, 
he  again  left  Liverpool  for  America,  in  the  meantime  having 
presided  over  the  English  Conference.  In  November  1797 
he  was  once  more  with  Asbury  at  the  Virginia  Conference, 
and  performed  his  episcopal  duties  throughout  the  autumn 
and  winter,  returning  to  Europe  in  the  spring  of  1798. 
Meantime  an  affectionate  contest  had  sprung  up  between 
the  English  and  the  Americans  as  to  the  possession  of  the 
little  Doctor  and  his  services.  It  had  been  supposed  at  the 
General  Conference  of  1796  that  he  would  have  to  return  to 
England  for  the  settlement  of  his  affairs,  personal  and  ec- 
clesiastical, before  his  permanent  residence  in  America 
could  begin.  Indeed  it  is  evident  from  the  document  itself, 
and  from  Asbury's  account,  that  the  engagement  into  which 
Coke  entered  with  the  General  Conference  was  not  abso- 
lute, but  contemplated  various  interruptions  of  his  American 
labors,  especially  by  the  affairs  of  the  French  and  West  In- 
dian missions.  The  written  engagement  itself,  it  is  highly 
probable.  Coke  impetuously  tendered,  after  the  debate  on 
the  matter,  without  demand  from  the  Conference,  which 
takes  no  official  notice  of  it  in  Journal  or  Minutes.  Indeed 
Dr.  Coke,  on  various  occasions,  exhibits  a  AQcided  petichant 
for  papers  of  this  description,  which  involved  him  in  some 
troubles  from  which  a  little  reserve  and  diplomacy  would 
have  saved  him.  After  his  long  absence  from  America, 
and  considering  Asbury's  growing  experience  and  entire  fa- 
miliarity with  the  preachers  and  the  work,  in  the  continental 
proportions  to  which  it  had  now  attained,  the  generous  and 
impulsive  Coke,  to  anticipate  objections,  or  to  fend  off  Lee's 
insinuations  in  debate,  modestly  represents  his  province 
as  "  to  assist  Bishop  Asbury,"  which  would  doubtless  have 
been  the  attitude  of  the  new  bishop,  had  one  been  elected. 

In  March,  1797,  Dr.  Coke  was  in  Ireland.  "  Keeping  in 
view,"  says  his  biographer,  "his  engagements  to  return  to 
America,  his  farewell  admonitions  had  a  powerful  effect 
upon  his  audiences."    Many  sorrowed  for  the  words  he 


278  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


spoke,  that  they  should  see  his  face  no  more.  At  the  suc- 
ceeding Irish  Conference,  he  found  himself  firmly  riveted  in 
the  affections  of  preachers  and  people.  "At  the  English 
Conference,  which  speedily  followed,  the  preachers  who  as- 
sembled intimated  one  to  another  the  prevailing  report,  that 
Dr.  Coke  intended  quitting  them  forever,  and  taking  up  his 
abode  for  life  in  the  United  States.  .  .  The  affairs  of  Confer- 
ence being  ended,  and  an  address  prepared  for  the  brethren 
in  America,  requesting  them  to  cancel  Dr.  Coke's  engage- 
ments to  continue  among  them,"  he  sailed  from  Liverpool, 
Aug.  28,  1797,  as  previously  noticed.  "  He  was  again 
brought  into  a  dilemma,  but  it  was  of  the  pleasing  kind.  He 
was  importuned  on  each  side  of  the  Atlantic."  * 

Mr.  Kobler's  presentation  of  Jesse  Lee's  argument  against 
the  acceptance  of  Dr.  Coke  by  the  American  Conference 
deserves  a  moment's  consideration,  though  we  cannot  de- 
pend upon  its  verbal  accuracy.  Its  substance  being  accepted 
as  sufficiently  correct,  the  argument  amounts  to  this,  that  it 
was  impolitic  for  the  Americans  to  have  another  English 
bishop.  Evidently  this  view  did  not  impress  the  General 
Conference,  then  or  afterwards.  Bishop  Asbury  continued 
in  the  successful  prosecution  of  his  superintendency  until 
1816;  Bishop  Coke  was  cordially  and  almost  unanimously 
accepted  at  this  time  and,  besides  much  episcopal  labor  in 
the  Annual  Conferences  and  throughout  the  Church,  pre- 
sided in  the  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1804;  in  1800, 
Bishop  Whatcoat,  another  Englishman,  was  elected  to  the 
episcopal  office,  after  a  tie  vote  between  him  and  brother 
Jesse  Lee.  Lee  was  a  great  and  good  man  who  brought 
things  to  pass ;  a  giant  of  the  itinerancy  who  deserves  recog- 
nition among  the  very  ablest  and  best  Methodist  preachers, 
produced  in  either  England  or  America.  Those  who  knew 
him  best  thought  he  ought  to  have  been  a  bishop,  and  this  is 
almost  certainl}^  true.  He  stood  deservedly  high  in  the  es- 
teem of  Asbury,  who,  in  1797,  nominated  him,  with  Poythress 
and  Whatcoat,  for  the  episcopacy,  under  circumstances 


*  Drew,  Life  of  Coke,  pp.  275,  276. 


The  General  Conference  of  ijgd.  279 

which  will  presently  pass  under  review.  If  Asbury  had  now 
consented  to  make  a  nomination  as  requested,  or  if  Coke 
had  not  made  this  tender  of  himself,  or  if  the  General  Con- 
ference had  rejected  him,  it  is  by  no  means  improbable  that 
Lee  would  have  been  chosen  a  bishop  in  1796.  It  is  not 
necessary  or  allowable  to  impeach  his  motives  with  respect 
to  the  position  he  took  in  debate  before  the  Conference.  It 
is  enough  to  remember  that  he  was  neither  more  nor  less 
than  human,  and  that  he  was  not  ignorant  of  the  impor- 
tance of  his  achievements  for  American  Methodism,  or 
of  the  esteem  in  which  he  was  held  by  his  brethren,  north 
and  south,  from  Asbury  down.  As  to  Asbury' s  alleged 
language,  "  If  we  reject  him,  it  will  be  his  ruin,"  if  he  used 
the  expression  at  all,  it  was  a  piece  of  rhetorical  exaggera- 
tion, which  Coke's  subsequent  reception  in  Ireland  and  En- 
gland, and  the  demands  of  his  English  brethren,  proved  to 
have  no  foundation  in  fact.  Kobler  testified  to  Asbury's 
"implicit  confidence  in  Dr.  Coke,"  and  though  Bishop 
Coke  had  doubtless  confidentially  communicated  to  his  col- 
league the  recent  events  in  England,  connected  with  the 
failure  of  his  African  mission,  and  the  "  sea  of  uncertain- 
ty "  on  which  he  was  cast,  in  his  wounded  feelings,  the 
event  demonstrated  that  both  of  them  estimated  too  lightly 
the  esteem  in  which  Dr.  Coke  was  held  by  the  English  Con- 
ference. At  the  very  next  Conference,  at  Leeds,  in  1797, 
he  was  elected  President  of  the  Conference,  the  highest 
honor  in  British  Methodism,  and  again  at  Sheffield  in  1805 
he  was  elevated  to  the  same  distinguished  office.  Of  the 
English  Conference  he  was  almost  continuously  Secretary 
from  1799  to  1813;  but  it  is  useless  to  adduce  further  proof 
of  the  supreme  regard  in  which  he  was  held  by  the  English 
Methodists  until  his  death. 

The  Rev.  William  Phoebus  has  left  us  an  account  of  the 
transactions  of  1796  connected  with  "strengthening  the 
episcopacy,"  which  makes  quite  a  different  impression  from 
Mr.  Kobler's,  and  by  which  we  may  correct  or  supplement 
the  latter: 


28o 


The  J^uadrennial  General  Conferences. 


The  question  before  the  house  was,  "  If  Francis  Asbury's  seat  as  Super- 
intendent be  vacated  by  death,  or  otherwise,  was  Dr.  Coke  considered,  from 
the  authority  he  had  in  the  Church,  as  having  a  right  to  take  the  Superln- 
tendency  in  the  same  manner  as  it  was  exercised  by  Francis  Asbury  ?  "  Dr. 
Coke  was  then  asked,  if  he  would  be  ready  to  come  to  the  United  States 
and  reside  there,  if  he  were  called  to  take  the  charge  as  Superintendent,  so 
that  there  might  be  a  succession  from  Wesley.  He  agreed,  as  soon  as  he 
should  be  able  to  settle  his  charge  in  Europe,  with  all  pleasure  and  possible 
dispatch  to  come  and  spend  his  days  in  America.  The  Rev.  Superintendent 
Asbury  then  reached  out  his  right  hand  in  a  pathetic  speech,  the  purport  of 
which  was :  "  Our  enemies  said  we  were  divided,  but  all  past  grievances  were 
buried,  and  friends  at  first,  are  friends  at  last,  and  I  hope  never  to  be  divided." 
The  doctor  took  his  right  hand  in  token  of  submission,  while  many  present 
were  in  tears  of  joy  to  see  the  happy  union  in  the  heads  of  department,  and 
from  a  prospect  of  the  Wesleyan  Episcopacy  being  likely  to  continue  in  regu- 
lar order  and  succession.* 

Some  pretty  high  churchmanship,  for  Methodists,  was 
floating  about  in  that  General  Conference,  despite  the  anxiety 
of  a  few  later  scribes  to  impress  upon  us  that  Bishop  Coke 
was  a  nondescript,  upon  whom  neither  the  General  Confer- 
ence nor  its  members  bestowed  any  special  regard.  He  was 
hardly  a  football  or  a  plaything.  Of  the  episcopal  election 
of  1800,  the  same  authority  says: 

At  a  General  Conference  in  1800  a  resolution  passed  to  strengthen  the 
episcopacy  by  adding  a  third.  There  were  two  principal  candidates  in  nomi- 
nation. But  such  as  thought  correctly  perceived  that  it  could  not  be 
strengthened  if  one  should  be  joined  to  it  who  was  not  convinced  that  such 
an  order  was  apostolic.  He  would  see  no  necessity  to  submit  to  such  an  or- 
dination, nor  to  defend  it  if  he  thought  it  not  divine,  any  more  than  he  would 
pray  fervently  and  devoutly  for  the  dead,  while  he  did  not  think  purgatory  a 
doctrine  of  the  Bible.  A  man  who  did  not  believe  in  three  orders  in  the 
ministry  would  weaken  the  episcopacy.  Such  was  one  of  the  nominated,  as 
may  be  seen  by  the  memoirs  of  the  Rev.  Jesse  Lee.  Richard  Whatcoat  had 
thought  it  an  honor  to  be  ordained  a  deacon,  as  St.  Stephen  was;  and  an  eld- 
er, as  the  Seventy ;  and  had  magnified  both  orders,  and  was  a  warm  advo- 
cate for  the  third;  esteeming  it  not  an  office  taken  at  pleasure,  but  an  order 
of  God. 

If  these  were  some  of  the  considerations  which  deter- 
mined that  election — and  such  they  doubtless  were,  judging 
from  the  tenor  of  the  vindication  of  Methodist  Episcopacy 
which  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  insert  in  their  Notes  on  the 
Discipline  of  1798,  in  which  they  refer  to  Timothy  and  Titus 


*  Memoirs  of  Bishop  Whatcoat,  p.  84. 


The  General  Conference  of  ijgd.  281 

as  "  traveling  bishops," — a  General  Conference  of  unlimited 
powers  gave  ratiier  strong  endorsement  to  the  "three  or- 
der" doctrine,  which  seems  to  have  been  generally  accept- 
ed among  the  earliest  Methodist  Episcopahans.  But  on  this 
point  we  shall  not  linger.  Rather  may  we  contemplate  the 
pleasing  scene  before  the  General  Conference  when  Coke 
and  Asbury,  the  "  heads  of  department,"  were  publicly  rec- 
onciled. They  had  not  met  in  four  years,  else  the  ahenation 
had  perhaps  been  more  speedily  removed.  In  1787,  they  had 
been  unhappily  opposed,  and  Asbury' s  poHcy  was  adopted. 
In  1792  Asbury  had  been  the  champion  of  the  Council  and 
Coke  of  the  Conference,  and  Coke's  plan  had  triumphed. 
Coke  had  also  fallen,  Asbury  thought,  too  much  under 
O'Kelly's  influence.  In  1796  "all  past  grievances  were 
buried,"  and  "friends  at  first"  were  "friends  at  last." 
When  Coke  died,  Asbury,  who  survived  him  two  years, 
wrote,  "  He  was  a  minister  of  Christ  in  zeal  and  labors,  and 
in  services,  the  greatest  man  of  the  last  century." 

Colbert  confirms  Asbury 's  and  Phoebus' s  account  of  the 
cordiality  and  unanimity  of  Coke's  reception: 

Friday,  [Oct.]  2S.  There  was  much  talk  about  another  Bishop,  and  in  the 
afternoon  Dr.  Coke  made  an  offer  of  himself.  It  was  not  determined  wheth- 
er thev  would  receive  him  ;  but  to-day  I  suppose  there  were  not  a  dozen  out 
of  a  hundred  that  rejected  him  hy  their  votes.  This  gave  me  satisfaction. 
The  afternoon  was  spent  debating  whether  the  local  deacons  should  be  made 
eligible  to  the  office  of  elder,  and  it  went  against  them.* 

When  Coke  returned  to  America  in  1797  with  the  epistle 
of  the  English  Conference  requesting  that  his  obligations  to 
the  American  Conference  should  be  canceled,  of  course 
there  was  no  General  Conference  ifi  session.  But  this  ad- 
dress was  laid  before  the  Virginia  Conference  then  in  ses- 
sion, and  Asbury  assumed  the  responsibility  of  a  reply,  dat- 
ed from  the  Virginia  Conference,  November  29,  i797' 

Respected  Fathers  and  Brethren :  You,  in  your  brotherly  kindness,  were 
pleased  to  address  a  letter  to  us,  your  brethren  and  friends  in  America,  ex- 
pressing your  difficulties  and  desires  concerning  our  beloved  brother,  Dr. 
Coke,  that  he  might  return  to  Europe  to  heal  the  breach  which  designing 
men  have  been  making  among  you,  or  prevent  its  threatened  overflow. 

*  Colbert's  Journal. 


282  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


We  have  but  one  grand  responsive  body,  which  is  our  General  Conference, 
and  it  was  in  and  to  this  body  the  doctor  entered  his  obligations  to  serve  his 
brethren  in  America.  No  yearly  conference,  no  official  character  dare  as- 
suipe  to  answer  for  that  grand  federal  body.  By  the  advice  of  the  yearly 
conference  now  sitting  in  Virginia,  and  the  respect  I  bear  to  you,  I  write  to 
inform  you  that  in  our  own  persons  and  order  we  consent  to  his  return,  and 
partial  continuance  with  you,  and  earnestly  pray  that  you  may  have  much 
peace,  union,  and  happiness  together.  May  you  find  that  your  divisions  end 
in  a  greater  union,  order,  and  harmony  of  the  body,  so  that  the  threatened 
cloud  may  blow  over,  and  your  divisive  party  may  be  of  as  little  conse- 
quence to  you,  as  ours  is  to  us.  With  respect  to  the  doctor's  returning  to 
us,  I  leave  your  -enlarged  understandings  and  good  sense  to  judge.  You 
will  see  the  number  of  souls  upon  our  annual  Minutes,  and  as  men  of  fead- 
ing,  you  may  judge  over  what  a  vast  continent  these  societies  are  scattered. 
I  refer  you  to  a  large  letter  I  wrote  our  beloved  brother  Bradburn  on  the 
subject.  .  .  .  From  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  where  the  conference 
was  held,  to  the  province  of  Maine,  where  another  conference  is  to  be  held, 
there  is  a  space  of  about  1,300  miles;  and  we  have  only  one  worn-out  super- 
intendent, who  was  this  day  advised  by  the  yearly  conference  to  desist  from 
preaching  till  next  spring,  on  account  of  his  debilitated  state  of  body.  But 
the  situation  of  our  affairs  requires  that  he  should  travel  about  5,000  miles  a 
year,  through  many  parts  unsettled,  and  other  thinly  peopled  countries.  I 
have  now  with  me  an  assistant,  who  does  everything  for  me  he  constitution- 
ally can;  but  the  ordaining  and  stationing  the  preachers  can  only  be  per- 
formed by  myself  in  the  doctor's  absence.  We  have  to  lament  that  our  su- 
perintendency  is  so  weak,  and  that  it  cannot  constitutionally  be  strength- 
ened till  the  ensuing  General  Conference.* 

And  so  Dr.  Coke  remained  in  suspense  between  the  im- 
portunities of  the  English  and  American  Conferences  until 
the  General  Conference  of  1800,  and  the  election  of  his  fel- 
low Englishman,  Whatcoat,  to  the  joint  superintendency 
with  Asbury.  But  previous  to  his  return  and  before  the 
meeting  of  the  Virginia  Conference,  there  were  some  im- 
portant occurrences  which  cannot  be  overlooked. 

In  the  summer  of  1797,  during  Dr.  Coke's  absence,  As- 
bury began  to  despair  of  meeting  his  episcopal  engage- 
ments. He  accordingly  wrote  to  Jesse  Lee  requesting  him 
to  be  in  readiness  to  accompany  him  from  the  approaching 
session  of  the  New  England  Conference  to  Charleston  and 
the  Southern  Conferences,  at  which,  however,  as  the  event 
proved,. Bishop  Coke  was  present,  and  assisted  in  the  dis- 
charge of  the  episcopal  labor.    September  12,  Asbury 


*Drew,  Life  of  Coke,  pp.  280,  281. 


The  General  Conference  of  ijgd. 


283 


again  writes,  appointing  Lee  president  of  the  New  England 
Conference,  and  indicating  his  further  intentions: 

My  Very  Dear  Brother:  I  am  convinced  that  I  ought  not  to  attempt  to 
come  to  the  Conference  at  Wilbraham.  Riding,  thirteen  miles  yesterday 
threw  me  into  more  fever  than  I  have  had  for  a  week  past.  It  will  be  with 
difficulty  I  shall  get  back.  The  burden  lieth  on  thee;  act  with  a  wise  and 
tender  hand,  especially  on  the  stations.  I  hope  it  will  force  the  Connection 
to  do  something,  and  turn  their  attention  for  one  to  assist  or  substitute  me. 
I  cannot  express  the  distress  I  have  had  in  all  my  afflictions,  for  the  state  of 
the  Connection.  We  say  the  Lord  will  provide.  True;  but  we  must  look 
out  for  men  and  means.  Your  brethren  in  Virginia  wish  you  to  come  forth. 
I  think  the  most  general  and  impartial  election  may  take  place  in  the  Yearly 
Conferences;  every  one  may  vote;  and  in  General  Conference,  perhaps  one- 
fifth  or  one-sixth  part  would  be  absent.  I  wish  you  to  come  and  keep  as 
close  to  me  and  my  directions  as  you  can.  I  wish  you  to  go,  after  the  Con- 
ference, to  Georgia,  Holston,  and  to  Kentucky ;  and  perhaps  come  to  Balti- 
more in  June,  if  the  ordination  should  take  place,  and  so  come  on  to  the 
Eastern  Conference. 

The  reference  to  ordination  is  explained  by  the  fact  that 
Asbury  had  sent  a  communication  to  the  New  England  Con- 
ference, nominating  Lee,  Poythress,  and  Whatcoat  for 
"  assistant  bishops."  But  the  Conference  wisely  decHned 
to  act,  in  view  of  the  requirements  of  the  DiscipHne,  and 
his  proposal  appears  not  to  have  been  laid  before  any  other 
Conference.  At  the  time  of  writing  to  Lee,  Asbury  was 
sick  with  "swelling  in  the  face,  bowels,  and  feet"  at  New 
Rochelle,  N.  Y.  Afterward  he  attempted  to  reach  the  Con- 
ference, but  returned  and  went  to  bed  with  a  high  fever, 
"  distressed  at  the  thought  of  a  useless  and  idle  life."  The 
New  England  Conference,  while  refusing  to  act  on  Asbury' s 
nominations,  gave  Lee  written  instructions  to  "  travel  with 
the  bishop,  and  fill  his  appointments  when  the  latter  could  not 
be  present."  In  his  Journal,  under  date  of  September  21, 
1797,  Asbury  says: 

It  is  a  doubt  if  the  Doctor  cometh  to  America  until  spring,  if  at  all  until 
the  General  Conference.  I  am  more  than  ever  convinced  of  the  propriety 
of  the  attempts  I  have  made  to  bring  forward  Episcopal  men:  First,  from 
the  uncertain  state  of  my  health ;  secondly,  from  a  regard  to  the  union  and 
good  order  of  the  American  body,  and  the  state  of  the  European  connection. 
I  am  sensibly  assured  the  Americans  ought  to  act  as  if  they  expected  to  lose 
me  every  day,  and  had  no  dependence  upon  Dr.  Coke,  taking  prudent  care 


284  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


not  to  place  themselves  at  all  under  the  controlling  influence  of  British 
Methodists* 

Asbury  clearly  perceived  the  value  of  Wesley's  episcopa- 
cy to  the  American  connection,  and  the  divisions  and  disasters 
which  were  threatening  the  English  from  the  lack  of  it. 
He  feared  the  lapse  of  that  episcopate  in  America,  and  con- 
sequent amalgamation  with  the  English,  and  the  possible 
supremacy  of  the  British  Conference  in  America  as  well  as 
at  home.  But  in  a  few  weeks  his  episcopal  colleague  was 
by  his  side,  and  in  1800  the  General  Conference  legally 
chose  a  new  bishop.  "That  he  meant  well,  and  nominated 
wisely  in  this,"  remarks  a  recent  author,  "  none  can  doubt. 
If  not  an  abusive  procedure,  it  was  liable  to  abuse."  t  It 
must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that,  notwithstanding  the 
unlimited  powers  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  sub- 
ordinate position  of  the  Yearly  bodies,  no  hard  and  fast  line 
had  yet  been  drawn  in  the  mind  of  the  Church  between  the 
action  of  the  ministry  assembled  in  General  Conference,  and 
the  action  of  the  ministry  generally  in  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences. Indeed  as  the  action  would  be  taken  in  either  case 
by  the  same  persons,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  conflict  of 
authority  could  arise.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences took  it  upon  themselves  to  alter  the  time  of  meet- 
ing appointed  for  both  the  General  Conference  of  1796  and 
that  of  1800.  And  even  General  Conferences  of  unUmited 
powers  governed  themselves  accordingly,  for  the  very  per- 
sons who  composed  them,  acting  in  a  scarcely  distinguish- 
able capacity,  had  authorized  the  change.  Asbury  was  des- 
tined to  be  left  alone  in  the  episcopacy  once  more,  on  the 
death  of  Whatcoat  in  1806.  And,  at  that  late  date,  when 
four  General  Conferences  had  sat,  a  measure  much  more 
radical,  dangerous,  and  indefensible  was  initiated  in  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  to  anticipate  the  election  of  a  bishop  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1808.  But  this  transaction  will 
be  examined  at  the  proper  point  in  our  history. 


♦Journal,  II.  292,  293.    |McTjeire,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  p.  470. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCES  OF  180O  AND  1804. 

/.  The  General  Conference  of  1800. 

THE  Conference  assembled  Tuesday,  May  6,  and  con- 
tinued in  session  fifteen  days,  adjourning  Tuesday  even- 
ing, May  20.*  The  Journal  is  attested  by  the  signatures  of 
T.  Coke,  President,  and  Nicholas  Snethen,  Secretary. 
It  is  probable  that  Asbury,  on  account  of  his  health  and  the 
usual  precedence  he  accorded  to  Coke,  surrendered  to  the 
latter  the  presidency  of  the  body.  Since  that  time  all  the 
General  Conferences  of  both  Episcopal  Methodisms  have 
been  held  in  the  spring,  usually  in  May. 

Asbury  records  a  brief  summar}^  of  proceedings  : 

We  had  much  talk,  but  little  work:  two  days  were  spent  in  considering 
about  Dr.  Coke's  return  to  Europe,  part  of  two  days  on  Richard  Whatcoat 
for  a  bishop,  and  one  day  in  raising  the  salary  of  the  itinerant  preachers 
from  sixtv-four  to  eighty  dollars  per  year.  We  had  one  hundred  and  six- 
teen members  present.  It  was  still  desired  that  I  should  continue  in  my 
station.  On  the  i8th  of  May,  1800,  elder  Whatcoat  was  ordained  to  the  office 
of  a  bishop,  after  being  elected  by  a  majority  of  four  votes  more  than  Jesse 
Lee.t 

Jesse  Lee,  Philip  Bruce,  George  Roberts,  John  Blood- 
good,  William  P.  Chandler,  John  McClaskey,  Ezekiel 
Cooper,  Nicholas  Snethen,  Thomas  Morrell,  Joseph  Totten, 
Lawrence  McCombs,  Thomas  F.  Sargent,  William  Burke, 
and  William  McKendree,  were  among  the  members — "  rep- 
resentative men,  who  laid  the  broad  foundations  of  Metho- 
dism, east,  west,  north,  and  south."  % 

The  second  day  of  the  session,  Snethen  introduced  a  res- 
olution, whose  preamble  recited  that  though  the  preceding 
General  Conference  had  appointed  Oct.  20,  1800,  for  the 

*  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  31,  46;  Asbury's  Journal,  II.  375.    -f  Journal,  II.  375. 
^Boehm's  Reminiscences,  p.  35. 

(285) 


286  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


present  session,  the  prevalence  of  a  "  very  malignant  epi- 
demic disorder,  called  yellow  fever  "  in  Baltimore  and  other 
seaports,  made  it  doubtful  w^hether  the  Conference  could 
safely  assemble  at  that  season,  and  "  Mr.  Asbury  did,  by  the 
advice  of  certain  judicious  friends,  lay  the  case  before  the 
yearly  conferences,"  which  appointed  May  6.  And  the  body 
adopted  his  resolution,  "  that  this  General  Conference,  now 
met  according  to  the  above  alteration  and  appointment,  do 
unanimously  approve  of  the  said  alteration,  and  ratify  it  ac- 
cordingly." * 

The  question  of  prospective  episcopal  supervision  had 
many  complications.  Dr.  Coke's  case,  and  the  request  of 
the  English  Conference,  were  to  be  disposed  of.  Mr.  As- 
bury's  suggestion  of  superannuation  and  retirement  must  be 
considered.  If  a  new  bishop  should  be  chosen,  it  remained 
to  be  determined  whether  his  powers  should  be  coordinate 
with  those  of  Bishop  Asbury  or  subordinate  to  them.  Let 
us  consider  these  matters  in  order,  and  first  the  case  of  Dr. 
Coke. 

The  first  day,  as  soon  as  Conference  opened,  Dr.  Coke 
presented  the  address  from  the  British  Conference,  explain- 
ing the  parts  relating  to  himself  and  his  return  to  Europe, 
and  adding  that  the  address  was  not  his  own  and  that  he 
was  not  consulted  about  it.  He  then  placed  the  decision  of 
the  case  entirely  with  the  General  Conference,  as  he  viewed 
himself  as  their  servant. f  Three  things  are  evident:  (i) 
the  British  Conference  "  clearly  perceived  that  the  Metho- 
dism of  England  needed  such  a  man,  and  sought  to  reclaim 
him;"  \  (2)  Coke  now  saw  the  necessity  of  his  services  in 
England,  especially  in  connection  with  the  missions,  and 
was  willing  to  give  them,  but  considered  himself  bound  to 
the  Americans,  and  meant  to  observe  his  compact,  unless 
honorably  released;  (3)  the  Americans  yielded  their  claim, 
but  partially  and  with  reluctance. 

Wednesday  morning.  May  7,  McClaskey  moved,  "  that 

*Gen.  Conf.  'ournals,  I.  32.  -fGen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  31. 

J  Smith,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  II.  306. 


The  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1804.  287 


in  compliance  with  the  address  of  the  British  Conference, 
and  request  to  us  to  let  Dr.  Coke  return  to  Europe,  this 
General  Conference  consent  and  agree  to  his  return,  upon 
condition  that  he  come  back  to  America  as  soon  as  his  busi- 
ness will  allow,  but  certainly  by  the  next  General  Confer- 
ence." This  motion  was  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  the 
afternoon  session,  when  the  subject  was  warmly  debated, 
and  postponed  until  Thursday  morning.  The  Conference 
was  evidently  not  yet  prepared  to  grant  the  request  from  En- 
gland. Thursday  morning,  "  the  business  of  the  address 
was  called  up,  and  debated  all  the  forenoon."  Thursday 
afternoon,  "the  vote  being  called  for  on  brother  Mc- 
Claskey's  motion,  a  large  majority  arose  in  favor  of  it.  Dr. 
Coke  is  to  return  to  Europe  accordingly."*  "We  have 
lent  the  Doctor  to  you,"  they  wrote  in  response  to  the  Eng- 
lish Conference,  "  for  a  season." 

Bishop  Asbury's  relation  to  the  work  also  came  under 
review.    Lee  says: 

Some  time  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  preachers  in  that  Conference 
Mr.  Asbury  had  said  that  when  they  met  he  would  resign  his  office  as  Su- 
perintendent of  tlie  Methodist  Connection,  and  would  take  his  seat  in  the 
Conference  on  a  level  with  the  elders.  He  wrote  to  several  of  the  preach- 
ers in  different  parts  of  the  Connection,  and  informed  them  of  his  intention; 
and  engaged  other  preachers  to  write  to  their  brethren  in  the  ministry,  and 
to  inform  them  of  his  intention  to  resign.  Withal,  he  wrote  his  resignation 
with  an  intention  to  deliver  it  into  the  Conference  as  soon  as  they  met,  and 
to  have  it  read  in  their  first  meeting.  He  said  he  was  so  weak  and  feeble 
both  in  body  and  mind  that  he  was  not  able  to  go  through  the  fatigues  of  his 
office.t 

The  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  reads: 

A  request  being  made  that  Mr.  Asbury  should  let  the  Conference  know 
what  he  had  determined  to  do  in  future,  he  intimated  that  he  did  not  know 
whether  this  General  Conference  were  satisfied  with  his  former  services. 
A  member  proposed  that  a  vote  should  be  taken.  The  vote  was  objected  to 
until  a  reason  should  be  assigned  for  such  suspicion.  Mr.  Asbury  then 
rose,  he  said,  to  speak  in  his  own  behalf.  His  affliction,  since  the  last  Gen- 
eral Conference,  had  been  such  that  he  had  been  under  the  necessity  of 
having  a  colleague  to  travel  with  him ;  that  his  great  debility  had  obliged 
him  to  locate  several  times,  and  that  he  could  only  travel  in  a  carriage;  and 
he  did  not  know  whether  this  General  Conference,  as  a  body,  were  satisfied 


'Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  32-34.   t  Hist,  of  Methodists,  p.  265. 


288  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


with  such  parts  of  his  conduct.  Whereupon  a  motion  was  made  by  brother 
Ezek.  Cooper,  That  this  General  Conference  do  resolve  that  they  consider 
themselves  under  many  and  great  obligations  to  Mr.  Asbury,  for  the  many 
and  great  services  he  has  rendered  to  this  connection. 

Secondly,  That  this  General  Conference  do  earnestly  entreat  a  continu- 
ation of  Mr.  Asbury's  services  as  one  of  the  general  superintendents  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  far  as  his  strength  will  permit.* 

This  action  was  "agreed  to,  nem.  con.''''  This  was  the 
first  case  of  partial  cessation  from  traveling,  by  permission 
of  the  General  Conference.  The  law  then  stood,  if  a  bish- 
op should  cease  from  traveling,  "without  the  consent  of  the 
General  Conference,  he  shall  not  thereafter  exercise  any 
ministerial  function  whatsoever  in  our  Church."  Bishop 
Asbury  was  now  a  superannuated  man.  He  delicately  de- 
sired to  give  the  General  Conference  an  opportunity  to  ex- 
press dissatisfaction  with  his  services,  if  any  existed.  The 
result  was  as  recorded  above. 

The  same  day  Burke  moved  the  election  and  ordination 
of  two  bishops.  Tolleson  offered  an  amendment,  that  the 
Conference  inquire,  "  whether  any  help  ought  to  be  afford- 
ed Mr.  x\sbury,  and  if  any,  what  that  help  shall  be."  The 
next  afternoon,  this  motion  was  called  up  and  divided  into 
two  parts,  "  Shall  any  assistance  be  given?  "  which  was  an- 
swered, "Yes;"  and  "What  shall  that  assistance  be?" 
when  a  large  majority  appeared  in  favor  of  one  bishop. 
Mr.  Asbury  was  also  authorized  to  take  with  him  an  elder 
as  a  traveling  companion.  The  following  Monday,  May  12, 
was  appointed  for  the  episcopal  election.  Meantime  many 
projects  were  brought  forward.  Dr.  Coke  moved  that  the 
new  bishop,  whenever  presiding  in  a  Conference  in  the  ab- 
sence of  Bishop  Asbury,  should  bring  the  stations  of  the 
preachers  into  the  Conference  and  read  them,  that  he 
might  hear  what  the  Conference  had  to  say  about  the  ap- 
pointments— "withdrawn  next  day."  This  was  the  Eng- 
lish plan,  but  the  Americans  did  not  care  even  to  vote  upon 
it.  Wells  moved  that  the  new  bishop,  in  stationing  the 
preachers,  be  aided  by  a  committee  of  not  less  than  three,  or 


*i.  33. 


The  General  Conferences  of  1800  ayid  1804..  289 

more  than  four  preachers,  chosen  by  the  Conference — 
"  voted  out  next  day."  McClaskey  moved  that  the  Confer- 
ence determine,  before  the  election,  the  powers  of  the  new 
bishop,  whether  he  shall  be  equal  to  Bishop  Asbury,  or  sub- 
ordinate to  him — "  withdrawn  by  consent."  Buxton  moved 
that  the  yearly  conferences  have  liberty  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee of  four  to  aid  the  bishops  in  stationing  the  preachers, 
a  majority  determining,  thus  extending  the  principle  to  As- 
bury as  well  as  the  new  bishop,  and  settUng  the  appoint- 
ments by  a  majority  vote  of  this  assembly  of  five,  including 
the  bishop.  "A  dispute  arising,  whether  the  motion  would 
go  to  abolish  an  old  rule,  the  Conference  were  of  opinion 
it  would.  Upon  a  division  of  the  house  the  motion  was 
negatived."  In  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  Mansfield 
moved  the  election  by  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  cab- 
inet of  four,  "the  bishops  still  having  the  ultimate  decision" 
— "  negatived."  Thus,  by  prompt  rejection  of  all  these 
proposed  modifications,  the  Conference  left  the  appointing 
power  as  it  was,  and  placed  the  new  bishop  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  old.  Methodist  episcopacy  is  a  joint,  gen- 
eral, itinerant  superintendency.  Finally,  on  Saturday  after- 
noon before  the  election  on  Monday,  Mansfield  moved 
"that  the  bishops  shall  have  full  and  equal  jurisdiction  in  all 
and  every  respect  whatsoever;  that  each  and  every  bishop 
shall  attend  each  and  every  Conference,  and  then  and  there 
mutually  preside,  and  station  the  preachers:  provided,  that 
in  case  they  should  unavoidably  be  prevented  from  attend- 
ing, the  bishop  or  bishops  then  present  shall  be  competent 
to  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office  as  fully  and  effectually, 
in  every  respect,  as  if  they  were  all  present;  that  at  each 
and  every  Conference  the  bishops  present  shall  mutually 
determine  and  agree  upon  their  several  different  routes  to 
the  ensuing  Conference."  This  resolution  was  too  minute 
and  complex  to  be  imposed  as  law  upon  men  having  to  meet 
the  exigencies  of  Methodist  bishops,  and  was  promptly  neg- 
atived. The  equal  jurisdiction  was  sufficiently  guaranteed 
by  the  refusal  of  the  Conference  to  modify  the  status  quo  in 
19 


290  The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


any  way;  the  details  of  administration  were  wisely  left  to 
the  arrangement  of  the  bishops  among  themselves,  and  so 
continue  until  this  day.* 

The  Journal  thus  records  the  episcopal  election  which  fol- 
lowed: 

The  Conference  proceeded  to  the  election  of  a  bishop;  the  first  poll  being 
a  tie,  and  supposed  defective.  Upon  the  second,  there  were  fifty-nine  votes 
for  Brother  Richard  Whatcoat,  fifty-five  for  Brother  Jesse  Lee,  and  one 
blank — the  whole  number  of  votes  being  one  hundred  and  fifteen;  where- 
upon Brother  Richard  Whatcoat  was  declared  duly  elected.^ 

This  agrees  with  Lee's  own  account,  except  that  accord- 
ing to  him  there  were  three  ballots  taken,  the  first  yielding 
no  election,  and  the  second  and  third  being  the  same  as  the 
first  and  second  as  recorded  in  the  Journal.  Lee's  account 
is  probably  correct,  the  Secretary  omitting  the  first  ballot 
from  his  record.  All  authorities  agree  as  to  the  tie  vote  and 
the  final  majority  of  four. 

Bishop  Asbury  is  the  author  of  the  law  for  the  inspection 
of  Annual  Conference  journals  by  the  General  Conference. 
On  the  last  day  of  the  session  he  moved  "that  a  general 
book  of  records  be  kept  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  by  a  secretary,  and  a  copy  of  the  said  record 
be  sent  to  the  General  Conference."  On  the  second  day 
Ormond  moved  that  the  Annual  Conferences  be  permitted 
"to  nominate  and  elect  their  own  president  elders,"  and 
thus  introduced  a  question  into  the  councils  of  the  Church 
which  proved  a  disturbing  influence  for  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury. When  his  motion  was  called  up  for  final  action,  it 
was  negatived,  apparently  promptly  and  by  a  general  vote, 
without  debate.  Tolleson  introduced  a  resolution  for  a  del- 
egated General  Conference,  which  was  defeated  "by  a 
great  majority."  Jesse  Lee  is  the  author  of  the  motion, 
which  prevailed,  that  no  preacher  should  be  eligible  to  a 
seat  in  the  General  Conference  until  he  had  traveled  four 
years.  Motions  to  make  local  preachers  eligible  to  elder's 
orders  were  defeated,  but  this  became  an  absorbing  question 
for  years  afterward.    The  bishops  were  granted  leave  to 

♦For  all  the  preceding,  see  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  35,  36.    ^Ibid.,  I.  36,  37. 


The  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1804.  291 


admit  colored  preachers  to  local  deacon's  orders,  though 
the  law  was  never  inserted  in  the  DiscipHne.  Richard  Al- 
len was  the  first  deacon  ordained  according  to  these  provis- 
ions. He  led  the  first  secession  of  colored  people  from  the 
Church  in  1816,  and  became  the  first  bishop  of  the  African 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.* 

This  Conference  was  one  of  the  earliest  of  those  conserv- 
ative bodies,  notable  rather  for  what  it  did  not  do,  than  for 
what  it  did.  Just  after  the  episcopal  election,  Ormond  in- 
troduced the  subject  of  slavery  in  an  elaborate  preamble  and 
resolution,  upon  which  no  action  was  taken.  Friday,  May 
16,  Snethen  moved,  "  that  from  this  time  forth  no  slavehold- 
er shall  be  admitted  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 
— "  Negatived."  Brother  Bloodgood  moved  "  that  all  ne- 
gro children  belonging  to  the  members  of  the  Methodist  So- 
ciety, who  shall  be  born  in  slavery  after  the  fourth  day  of 
July,  1800,  shall  be  emancipated,  males  at  —  years,  and  fe- 
males at  —  years." — "  Negatived."  Brother  Lathomus 
moved  that  every  member  of  the  Church  holding  slaves 
shall,  within  one  year,  emancipate  —  negatived.  Cooper 
moved  an  address  to  the  Societies  on  the  evils  of  slavery, 
which  was  carried.  Timmons  and  McKendree  offered  the 
only  measures  which  w^ere  incorporated  in  the  Discipline  of 
the  Church, t  as  follows: 

2.  When  any  traveling  preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves, 
by  any  means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  un- 
less he  execute,  if  it  be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  con- 
formably to  the  laws  of  the  state  in  which  he  lives. 

6.  The  annual  conferences  are  directed  to  draw  up  addresses  for  the 
gradual  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  to  the  legislature  of  those  states  in 
which  no  general  laws  have  been  passed  for  that  purpose.  These  addresses 
shall  urge,  in  the  most  respectful,  but  pointed  manner,  the  necessity  of  a  law 
for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  the  slaves;  proper  committees  shall  be  ap- 
pointed, by  the  annual  conferences,  out  of  the  most  respectable  of  our 
friends,  for  the  conducting  of  the  business;  and  the  presiding  elders,  elders, 
deacons,  and  traveling  preachers,  shall  procure  as  many  proper  signatures 
as  possible  to  the  addresses,  and  give  all  the  assistance  in  their  power  in 
every  respect  to  aid  the  committees,  and  to  further  this  blessed  undertaking. 
Let  this  be  continued  from  year  to  year,  till  the  desired  end  be  accomplished.  J 

•Journal  of  Gen.  Conf.  for  iSoo,  passim,  t  Discipline,  179S,  pp.  12,  13  of  appended  Minutes 
of  Gen.  Conf.  of  iSoo;  Emory,  Hist.,  pp.  276,  277.    tSee  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  37,  40,  41. 


292  The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


II.  The  General  Conference  of  180^. 

The  General  Conference  of  1804  assembled  in  Baltimore, 
May  7,  1804.  The  preceding  body  had  appointed  May  6 
for  the  session,  but  this  day  was  Sunday.  It  adjourned 
Wednesday,  May  23,  after  a  session  of  seventeen  days. 
Coke,  "  as  senior  bishop,"  presided,*  and  John  Wilson  was 
chosen  Secretary. 

Under  date  of  Monday,  May  7,  1804,  Asbury  says,  "  Our 
General  Conference  began.  What  was  done,  the  Revised 
Form  of  Discipline  will  show.  There  were  attempts  made 
upon  the  ruling  eldership.  We  had  a  great  talk.  I  talked 
little  upon  any  subject;  and  was  kept  in  peace."  f 

There  were  one  hundred  and  twelve  members,  though 
five  were  denied  seats.  The  Philadelphia  Conference  had 
forty-one  representatives;  Baltimore,  twenty-nine ;  Virginia, 
seventeen;  and  New  York,  twelve:  while  the  New  England 
had  but  four;  the  Western,  four,  and  South  Carolina,  five. 
The  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  Conferences  had  together 
seventy  representatives,  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  whole  Con- 
ference. Four  of  those  who  were  refused  seats,  however, 
came  from  the  Philadelphia  Conference,  while  an  additional 
member  was  added  later  to  the  Baltimore  delegation. 

The  Discipline  was  revised  section  by  section,  Coke 
reading  the  items  from  the  chair  and  the  Conference  debat- 
ing and  deciding.  The  results  were  incorporated  in  the 
Discipline,  and  no  separate  minutes  were  pubHshed.  % 

On  motion  of  Ezekiel  Cooper,  the  twenty-third  Article  of 
Religion  was  changed  into  its  present  form,  "  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  "  being  substituted  for  "  General  Act  of 
Confederation,"  and  the  words,  "are  a  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent nation,"  inserted.  The  case  of  the  five  brethren 
who  were  denied  seats  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  resolution 
that  "  the  preachers  who  shall  have  traveled  four  years  from 
the  time  they  were  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence, and  are  in  full  connection,  shall  compose  the  Gener- 

*Quinn's  Life,  p.  82.    (Q.  was  present.)  "f  Journal,  III.  137. 

JLee,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  p.  298. 


The  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1804.. 


293 


al  Conference."  On  Snethen's  motion  the  bishops  were 
required  to  allow  the  Annual  Conferences  to  sit  a  week  at 
least ;  hitherto  they  had  adjourned  thexn  when  they  regard- 
ed the  business  finished.  The  Annual  Conferences  were 
empowered  to  appoint  the  places  of  their  sessions.  Thurs- 
day morning,  May  10,  Thomas  Lyell  moved  "  the  abolition 
of  the  whole  fifth  section,  concerning  presiding  elders.  This 
was  afterward  altered  by  the  mover,  that  there  be  no  presid- 
ing elders."  In  the  afternoon,  after  a  long  debate,  the  mo- 
tion of  Lyell  was  lost.  On  Cooper's  motion,  provision  was 
made  for  the  election  of  a  presiding  elder  to  preside  in  an 
Annual  Conference  in  the  absence  of  a  bishop.  On  motion 
of  George  Daugherty  it  was  agreed  to  limit  the  appointing 
power  of  the  bishop  as  follows:  "  Provided,  he  shall  not  al- 
low any  to  remain  in  the  same  station  more  than  two  years 
successively,  excepting  the  presiding  elders,"  etc.* 

When  the  letters  from  the  European  Conferences  were 
read,  Cooper  moved  that  "  Dr.  Coke  shall  have  leave  from 
this  General  Conference  to  return  to  Europe,  agreeably  to 
the  request  of  the  European  Conferences,  provided  he  shall 
hold  himself  subject  to  the  call  of  three  of  our  Annual  Con- 
ferences, to  return  to  us  when  he  shall  be  requested ;  but  at 
furthest,  that  he  shall  return,  if  he  lives,  to  the  next  General 
Conference."  When  called  up,  a  week  later,  this  resolu- 
tion "by  a  vote  very  general,  if  not  unanimous,  was  carried,  "t 

On  the  question,  "  Shall  there  be  an  ordination  of  local 
elders?  "  there  was  a  tie  vote  of  44  to  44,  whereupon  Dr. 
Coke  moved  "  that  it  lie  over,  as  unfinished  business,  till  the 
next  General  Conference,"  and  the  motion  prevailed.! 

Slavery  legislation  was  considerably  modified.  The  ques- 
tion was  altered  to,  "What  shall  be  done  for  the  extirpation 
of  the  evil  of  slavery?"  "A  variety  of  motions  were  pro- 
posed on  the  subject,"  says  the  Journal,  "  and,  after  a  long 
conversation,  Freeborn  Garrettson  moved,  that  the  subject 

*  For  the  whole  of  the  above,  see  Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  1804, /aj«»». 
t  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  57,  64. 
X  Ibid. ,1.62. 


294  ^'^^  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


of  slavery  be  left  to  the  three  bishops,  to  form  a  section  to 
suit  the  Southern  and  Northern  states,  as  they  in  their  wis- 
dom may  think  best,  to  be  submitted  to  this  Conference." 
This  measure  prevailed,  but  Bishop  Asbury  declined  to 
serve.  The  next  day,  on  motion  of  Cooper,  a  committee  of 
seven,  one  from  each  Conference,  composed  of  Daugherty, 
Bruce,  Burke,  WilHs,  Cooper,  Garrettson,  and  Lyell,  was 
appointed  "  to  take  the  different  motions  and  report  concern- 
ing slavery."  This  committee  reported  an  elaborate  statute 
considerably  qualifying  the  provisions  of  previous  legislation. 
The  provision  for  the  expulsion  of  a  member  for  selling  a 
slave  was  modified  by  the  proviso,  except  at  the  request  of 
the  slave,  in  cases  of  mercy  and  humanity,  agreeably  to  the 
judgment  of  a  committee  of  the  male  members  of  the  society 
appointed  by  the  preacher  in  charge."  It  was  further  or- 
dained that  "  if  a  member  of  our  society  shall  buy  a  slave 
with  a  certificate  of  future  emancipation,  the  terms  of  eman- 
cipation shall,  notwithstanding,  be  subject  to  the  decision  of 
the  quarterly-meeting  Conference."  The  Methodists  in 
North  and  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Tennessee  were 
"  exempted  from  the  operation  "  of  all  the  rules  on  slavery. 
The  directions  to  the  Annual  Conferences  to  prepare  peti- 
tions for  emancipation  to  the  state  legislatures  were  annulled, 
and  the  whole  concluded  with  this  rule,  "Let  our  preachers 
from  time  to  time,  as  occasion  serves,  admonish  and  exhort 
all  slaves  to  render  due  respect  and  obedience  to  the  com- 
mands and  interests  of  their  respective  masters."  * 

On  Coke's  motion  the  Discipline  had  been  ordered  to  be 
divided  into  two  parts,  "  The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  and  "  The  Temporal 
Economy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  It  was  or- 
dered "that  a  number  of  the  first  or  spiritual  part  of  our 
Discipline  be  printed  as  a  separate  part,  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Christian  slaves  belonging  to  our  Society  in  the  South." 
This  part  did  not  contain  the  laws  on  slavery,  and  the  next 
day,  on  motion  of  Daugherty,  it  was  ordered  "that  two 

*  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  60-63. 


The  General  Confeo^ences  of  1800  and  1804..  295 


thousand  copies  of  the  first  or  spiritual  part  of  our  Discipline 
be  printed  off  and  bound,  for  the  use  of  the  South." 

We  refrain,  as  usual,  from  any  comment  on  this  slavery 
legislation,  leaving  the  reader  to  draw  his  own  conclusions: 
he  has  a  right  to  expect,  however,  a  complete  historj^  of  the 
legislation  of  the  Church  on  this  subject  in  these  pages,  and 
this  demand  we  shall  continue  to  meet. 

Coke,  Asbury,  and  Whatcoat  were  to  meet  no  more  in 
General  Conference.  This  was  the  last  visit  Coke  made  to 
America;  before  the  meeting  of  the  next  General  Confer- 
ence, Whatcoat  departed  this  life:  Asbury  came  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1808  once  more  alone  in  the  episcopacy. 

After  the  death  of  Bishop  Whatcoat  in  1806,  and  in  view 
of  the  faihng  health  of  Bishop  Asbury,  a  sense  of  insecurity 
with  regard  to  the  episcopacy  and  the  stability  of  the  Church 
itself  seemed  to  pervade  the  Connection.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, "  a  plan  agreed  upon  by  the  New  York  Con- 
ference, to  organize  and  establish  a  permanent  Superintend- 
ency  over  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States,  and  recommended  to  the  other  six  Conferences  for 
their  concurrence  "  was  laid  before  the  several  Conferences 
by  Bishop  Asbur}^  The  plan  proposed  that  forty-nine 
delegated  electors,  seven  from  each  Conference,  should 
convene  in  Baltimore,  July  4,  1807,  "for  the  express  pur- 
pose, and  with  full  powers,  to  elect,  organize,  and  establish 
a  permanent  Superintendency,  and  for  no  other  purpose." 
The  document  from  which  the  quotations  above  are  cited 
was  "  signed  by  order  and  in  behalf  of  the  unanimous  voice 
of  the  Conference"  by  Freeborn  Garrettson,  Ezekiel  Coop- 
er, and  Samuel  Coate,  attested  by  Francis  Ward,  Secreta- 
ry, and  dated  New  York,  INIay  22,  1806.  Appended  to  this 
circular  are  the  following  subscriptions: 

The  New  England  Conference  concur  with  the  proposal  made  by  the 
New  York  Conference,  for  calling  a  delegated  General  Conference  on  July 
4,  1807,  for  the  express  purpose  of  strengthening  the  Superintendency. 
Yeas,  28;  nays,  15.  Tho.  Branch,  Secy. 

The  Western  Conference  concur  with  the  proposal  made  by  the — etc., 
etc.    Unanimity.  Wm.  Burke,  Sec^. 

The  South  Carolina  Conference  concur — etc.  T»vo  members  only  ex- 
cepted. Lewis  Myers,  Sec'y. 


296  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


Virginia  Conference,  Newbern,  Feb.  6,  1807. — The  New  York  Conference 
having  written  a  circular  letter  to  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  propos- 
ing a  plan  to  strengthen  the  Superintendency,  the  letter  was  read  in  this 
Conference  yesterday,  and  a  vote  taken — "Shall  we  consider  the  subject?" 
Only  seven  were  in  favor  of  the  motion.  The  subject  was  called  up  again 
to-day,  and  a  second  vote  was  taken;  fourteen  were  in  favor  of  it.  It  is 
therefore  the  decision  of  Conference  not  to  be  concerned  in  it. 

Signed  in  and  by  order  of  the  Conference. 

P.  Bruce, 
Jesse  Lee, 

Thos.  L.  Douglass,  ^ec'j.* 
Jesse  Lee's  account  in  his  History  agrees  in  every  partic- 
ular with  Bishop  Paine' s  original  document: 

In  the  course  of  the  year  1806  there  was  a  plan  laid  which  would  have 
overset  and  destroyed  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Methodists  respect- 
ing the  election  and  ordination  of  bishops.  It  was  said  that  the  plan  origi- 
nated in  the  New  York  Conference,  which  was  as  follows:  "To  call  a  dele- 
gated Conference  of  seven  members  from  each  Conference,  chosen  by  the 
Conference,  to  meet  in  Baltimore,  on  the  4th  of  July,  1807,  to  choose 
superintendents,  etc."  This  plan  was  adopted  by  four  of  the  Confer- 
ences; viz.,  New  York,  New  England,  the  Western,  and  South  Carolina 
Conferences;  and  delegates  were  accordingly  chosen.  But  when  it  was 
proposed  to  the  Virginia  Conference,  which  met  in  Newbern  in  February, 
1807,  they  refused  to  take  it  under  consideration,  and  rejected  it  as  being 
pointedly  in  opposition  to  all  the  rules  of  our  Church.  The  bishop  labored 
hard  to  carry  the  point,  but  he  labored  in  vain ;  and  the  whole  business  of 
that  dangerous  plan  was  overset  by  the  Virginia  Conference.  The  invent- 
ors and  defenders  of  that  project  might  have  meant  well;  but  they  certainly 
erred  in  judgment.| 

And  so  Jesse  Lee,  despite  the  influence  of  Bishop  Asbury, 
brought  these  very  doubtful  proceedings  to  an  end  in  the 
Virginia  Conference.  It  was  not  the  least  of  the  services 
which  he  rendered  the  Church. 


*Paine's  Life  of  McKendree,  I.  184-186.  The  original  document  was  in 
possession  of  Bishop  Paine,  and  was  probably  the  identical  paper  which 
Bishop  Asbury  took  from  the  New  York  to  the  other  Conferences.  This 
appears  from  the  official  entry  of  their  endorsements  upon  it  by  the  Secre- 
taries. When  the  plans  failed  at  the  Virginia  Conference,  Bishop  A.  doubt- 
less retained  the  paper.  From  him  it  passed  (o  Bishop  McK.,  and  thence  to 
Bishop  Paine. 

I  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  344,  345. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1808. 

THE  Fifth  Quadrennial  General  Conference  assembled, 
like  all  of  its  predecessors,  in  Baltimore,  Friday,  May 
6,  and  adjourned  Thursday,  May  26,  1808,  after  a  three 
weeks'  session.  Jesse  Lee  alludes  to  it  as  "  our  fifth  and 
last  General  Conference,"  i.  e.,  the  last  mass  convention  of 
the  traveling  preachers  of  four  years'  standing,  w^ith  unlim- 
ited powers.  Until  the  election  of  McKendree,  Asburj'  was 
the  only  bishop  present.  One  hundred  and  twenty-nine 
members  took  their  seats,  among  whom  were  five  future 
bishops  of  the  Church — William  McKendree,  of  the  West- 
ern Conference,  elected  at  this  time;  Enoch  George  and 
Robert  R.  Roberts,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  elected  in 
1816;  and  Joshua  Soule  and  Elijah  Hedding,  of  the  New 
England  Conference,  elected  in  1824.  The  Baltimore  Con- 
ference had  thirtj'-one  representatives,  and  the  Philadelphia, 
thirty-two,  these  two  Conferences  together  having  nearly  a 
majority  of  the  body.  The  conditions  had  been  similar  in 
1804,  and  it  was  this  apparently  permanent  preponderance 
of  the  central  over  the  border  Conferences,  giving  the  for- 
mer control  of  legislation  and  elections,  that  brought 
about  the  demand  of  the  latter  for  a  Delegated  General 
Conference,  in  which  all  the  Annual  Conferences  should 
have  proportionate  representation.  In  1804  the  necessity 
for  a  delegated,  representative  body  had  been  generally  ac- 
knowledged, but  as  preparatory  steps  had  not  been  taken, 
and  it  was  desirable  for  the  Annual  Conferences  to  act  with 
mature  deliberation,  by  common  consent  the  measure  was 
deferred  until  1808.  "  It  was  therefore  understood  through- 
out the  whole  Church,"  remarks  Bishop  Paine,  "  that  at  this 
Conference  the  organization  of  the  Church  should  be  com- 
pleted by  some  general  measures  which  should  effect  a  cen- 

(297) 


298  The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


tralization  of  power  in  a  delegated  body  having  supreme  leg- 
islative jurisdiction."  * 

This  was,  indeed,  the  completion  of  the  organization  of 
the  Church.  The  Christmas  Conference,  as  we  have  seen, 
was,  in  no  proper  sense,  a  General  Conference.  No  at- 
tempt was  made  in  that  meeting  to  provide  for  any  successor 
in  the  way  of  a  permanent  legislative  assembly.  It  was  an 
extraordinary  convention  of  the  ministry  for  initiating  minis- 
terial orders  and  for  the  episcopal  organization  of  the  Church, 
and  when  these  ends  were  accomplished,  the  convention  dis- 
solved. It  had  no  successor.  The  Annual  Conferences 
and  Superintendents  resumed,  in  general,  the  functions  and 
powers  which  they  had  exercised  before  the  meeting  of  the 
Christmas  Conference,  modified  by  the  legislation  of  that 
body.  These  conditions  continued  until  the  disastrous  ex- 
periment of  the  Council  in  1789  and  1790.  The  disabilities 
under  which  the  infant  Church  labored,  for  the  lack  of  a 
supreme  legislative  assembly,  compelled  the  convening  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1792,  which  Jesse  Lee  and  Dr.  Na- 
than Bangs,  the  earliest  historians  of  the  Church,  agree  in 
designating  the  first.  Five  of  these  assemblies  were  held 
from  1792  to  1808;  but,  in  addition  to  the  growing  inequali- 
ties of  representation,  the  wisest  and  most  prudent  ministers 
of  the  Church  felt  that  such  a  General  Conference,  in  which 
a  majority  vote  might  at  any  time  overthrow  the  Articles  of 
Religion,  the  General  Rules,  or  the  Episcopal  government 
of  the  Church,  was  no  safe  centre  of  power  or  bond  of 
union  for  the  rapidly  expanding  Methodism  of  America. 
Hence  the  General  Conference  of  1808  completed  the  organ- 
ization of  the  Church  by  creating  the  Delegated  General 
Conference,  and  giving  to  that  body  a  constitution,  under 
which  the  operations  of  Episcopal  Methodism  have  ever 
since  been  conducted. 

The  business  was  brought  before  the  Conference,  Mon- 
day afternoon.  May  9,  by  a  memorial  from  the  New  York, 
the  New  England,  the  Western,  and  the  South  Carolina  Con- 


*  Life  of  McKendree,  I.  184. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


ferences — the  same  bodies  which  the  year  before  had  been 
defeated  in  their  effort  for  an  episcopal  electoral  college.  As 
before,  the  measure  had  originated  in  the  New  York  Con- 
ference, and  had  received  the  endorsement  of  the  others. 
Its  material  part  reads  as  follows : 

When  we  take  a  serious  and  impartial  view  of  this  important  subject, 
and  consider  the  extent  of  our  Connection,  the  number  of  our  preachers, 
the  great  inconvenience,  expense,  and  loss  of  time  that  must  necessarily  re- 
sult from  our  present  regulations  relative  to  our  General  Conference,  we 
are  deeply  impressed  with  a  thorough  conviction  that  a  representative  or 
delegated  General  Conference,  composed  of  a  specific  number  on  principles 
of  equal  representation  from  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  would  be 
much  more  conducive  to  the  prosperity  and  general  unity  of  the  whole  body, 
than  the  present  indefinite  and  numerous  body  of  ministers,  collected  together 
unequally  from  the  various  Conferences,  to  the  great  inconvenience  of  the 
ministry  and  injury  of  the  work  of  God.  We  therefore  present  unto  you  this 
memorial,  requesting  that  you  will  adopt  the  principle  of  an  equal  represen- 
tation from  the  Annual  Conferences,  to  form,  in  future,  a  delegated  General 
Conference,  and  that  you  will  establish  such  rules  and  regulations  as  are  nec- 
essary to  carry  the  same  into  effect. 

As  we  are  persuaded  that  our  brethren  in  general,  from  a  view  of  the  sit- 
uation and  circumstances  of  the  connection,  must  be  convinced,  upon  mature 
and  impartial  reflection,  of  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  the  measure,  we 
forbear  to  enumerate  the  various  reasons  and  arguments  which  might  be 
urged  in  support  of  it.  But  we  do  hereby  instruct,  advise,  and  request  every 
member  who  shall  go  from  our  Conference  to  the  General  Conference  to 
urge,  if  necessary,  every  reason  and  argument  in  favor  of  the  principle,  and 
to  use  all  their  Christian  influence  to  have  the  same  adopted  and  carried 
into  effect.  And  we  also  shall,  and  do,  invite  and  request  our  brethren  in 
the  several  Annual  Conferences,  which  are  to  sit  between  this  and  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  to  join  and  unite  with  us  in  the  subject  matter  of  this  me- 
morial. 

Appended  to  this  memorial  were  the  following  official 
certificates  : 

The  Eastern  Conference  unanimously  voted  to  concur  with  the  New- 
York  Conference  in  the  subject-matter  of  the  above  memorial. 

Boston  Conference,  June  3,  1807.  ThOMAS  BRANCH,  Secretary. 

The  Western  Conference  unanimously  voted  to  concur  with  the  New- 
York  Conference  in  the  subject-matter  of  the  above  memorial. 

ChiUicothe,  O.,  Sept.  16,  1807.  WlLLlAM  BuRKE,  Secretary. 

The  South  Carolina  Conference,  with  the  exception  of  five  members, 
concur  with  the  New  York  Conference  in  the  above  memorial. 

Jan.  2,  i8o8.  Lewis  Myers,  Secretary. 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  76--r8. 


300  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


The  three  great  central  Conferences,  Baltimore,  Philadel- 
phia, and  Virginia,  had  all  held  their  sessions  for  1807  be- 
fore this  memorial  originated  in  the  New  York  Conference, 
in  May  1807,  as  had  also  the  Western  and  South  Carolina 
Conferences,  in  the  autumn  and  winter  of  1806.*  The  New 
England  was  the  only  Conference  which  met  later  than  the 
New  York,  and  here  the  memorial  was  promptly  and  unani- 
mously adopted  within  a  month.  The  Western  and  South 
Carolina  Conferences  concurred  at  their  sessions  of  the  fol- 
lowing year.t  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  memo- 
rial was  not  laid  before  the  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  and  Vir- 
ginia Conferences  at  their  spring  sessions  in  1808.  But,  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  general  expectation  of  the  Church, 
these  strong  central  bodies  did  not  concur 4  Either  they  were 
suspicious  of  the  Conferences  which  had  unitedly  originated 
the  scheme  of  an  electoral  commission,  to  strengthen  the 
episcopacy  contrary  to  existing  law,  in  1807,  or  they  were 
satisfied  with  the  General  Conference  as  it  was,  since  their 

♦Minutes,  ed.  of  1813,  pp.  377,  378. 

"I"  Compare  dates,  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  78,  and  in  Minutes,  p.  404.  Ste- 
vens, Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  IV.  440,  confuses  the  memorials  of  1806  and  1807. 

%  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee  says  expressly  that  the  New  York  memorial  was  brought 
before  the  Virginia  Conference  of  1808,  and  that,  partly  through  Jesse  Lee's 
influence,  it  was  adopted  with  great  unanimity.  That  Jesse  Lee  was  per- 
sonally favorable  to  a  Delegated  General  Conference  is  not  open  to  question. 
But  it  is  quite  certain  that  his  biographer  is  mistaken  in  supposing  that  the 
Virginia  Conference  adopted  the  memorial,  though  it  doubtless  came  before 
the  body.  He  adds,  "  It  is  believed  all  the  Conferences  adopted  this  me- 
morial," but  in  this  he  is  clearly  wrong,  as  it  is  not  credible  that  when 
the  memorial  was  read  in  General  Conference,  with  the  official  certificates  of 
the  concurrence  of  the  New  England,  Western,  and  South  Carolina  Confer- 
ences attached,  the  delegates  of  the  other  three  Conferences  should  have 
failed  to  inquire  why  the  official  endorsement  of  their  own  bodies  was  omit- 
ted. The  same  objection  applies  of  course  to  the  alleged  endorsement  by 
the  Virginia  Conference  alone.  It  is  a  case  of  Dr.  Lee's  memory  against 
the  General  Conference  Journal,  where  a  very  precise  and  important  docu- 
ment, with  its  several  official  endorsements,  is  recorded  verbatim.  The  de- 
cision must  be  against  the  Doctor  and  Abel  Stevens,  who  follows  him. 
Moreover  Jesse  Lee's  persistent  opposition  to  the  plan  for  a  delegated  body 
as  reported  in  the  General  Conference  of  1808  renders  it  more  than  doubtful 
whether  he  favored  the  memorial  when  laid  before  his  Annual  Conference. 
See  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  429. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


301 


permanent  control  of  legislation  and  elections  was  assured. 
Thus  the  memorial  came  before  the  General  Conference  with 
the  endorsement  of  four  Annual  Conferences  out  of  seven ; 
but  these  four  Conferences  had  but  fort}^-eight  representa- 
tives on  the  floor  of  the  General  Conference,  while  the  three 
non-concurring  Conferences  had  eighty-one.  Despite  the 
general  feeling  of  the  Church  that  something  would  be  done, 
the  prospects  of  the  memorial  were  not  brilHant. 

The  day  following  the  presentation  of  the  memorial,  Bish- 
op Asbury,  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  "  called  for  the 
mind  of  the  Conference,  whether  any  further  regulation  in 
the  order  of  the  General  Conference"  was  necessary. 
This  question  was  carried  in  the  affirmative.  So  far  all  was 
well  for  the  memorial.  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference,  seconded  by  Wilham  Burke,  of  the  West- 
ern, now  moved  for  a  committee  "to  draw  up  such  regula- 
tions as  they  may  think  best,  to  regulate  the  General  Con- 
ferences," which  motion  prevailed.  The  parentage  of  this 
motion  was  auspicious.  But  here  Bishop  Asbury,  who  was, 
for  many  reasons,  a  hearty  supporter  of  the  proposed  Dele- 
gated Conference,  interposed  with  a  motion,  "  that  the  com- 
mittee be  formed  from  an  equal  number  from  each  of  the 
Annual  Conferences."  This  was  excellent  parliamentary 
tactics,  for  it  insured  to  the  memorialists  a  majority  of  the 
committee  that  was  to  frame  the  measure  for  which  they 
asked.  Had  the  committee  been  a  miscellaneously  selected 
one  of  five,  nine,  or  fifteen,  the  character  of  the  plan 
brought  into  the  Conference  for  its  action  would  have  been 
very  doubtful.  The  Bi.shop's  motion  carried,  no  one  ob- 
jecting; and,  after  the  defeat  of  a  motion  that  the  commit- 
tee be  composed  of  three  from  each  Conference,  Roszel 
and  Burke  moved  for  two,  and  their  motion  prevailed. 
Ezekiel  Cooper  and  John  Wilson,  from  the  New  York; 
George  Pickering  and  Joshua  Soule,  from  the  New  En- 
gland; William  McKendree  and  William  Burke,  from  the 
Western;  William  Phoebus  and  Josias  Randle,  from  the 
South  Carolina;  Philip  Bruce  and  Jesse  Lee,  from  the  Vir- 


302  The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


ginia;  Stephen  G.  Roszel  and  Nelson  Reed,  from  the  Bal- 
timore; and  John  McClaskey  and  Thomas  Ware,  from  the 
Philadelphia  Conference,  were  elected.*  An  abler  commit- 
tee could  hardly  have  been  formed  from  the  Conference. 
Seldom  has  a  committee  had  a  more  important  work  com- 
mitted to  its  hands.  The  memorialists  had  a  clear  majority 
of  two,  and  thus,  by  the  old  bishop's  timely  help,  had  won 
the  skirmish  for  position. 

So  far  the  official  record  has  been  our  guide.  It  here  de- 
serts us,  until  the  report  of  the  committee  is  brought  in 
nearly  a  week  later.  Of  the  private  work  in  committee  Dr. 
Charles  Elliott  gives  an  account  in  his  Life  of  Bishop  Rob- 
erts (pp.  157,  158): 

On  the  first  meeting  of  the  Committee,  they  conversed  largely  on  the 
provisions  which  their  report  to  the  Conference  should  contain.  After  con- 
siderable deliberation,  they  agreed  to  appoint  a  sub-committee  of  three  to 
draft  a  report  to  be  submitted  to  Conference — subject,  however,  to  such  ad- 
ditions or  modifications  as  a  future  meeting  of  the  whole  Committee  might 
see  fit  to  make.  The  sub-committee  consisted  of  Ezekiel  Cooper,  Joshua  Soiile, 
and  Philip  Bruce.  When  the  sub-committee  met,  it  was  agreed,  after  a  full 
exchange  of  sentiments,  that  each  should  draw  up  a  separate  paper  compris- 
ing the  necessary  restrictions  or  regulations  in  the  best  way  he  could,  and 
that  each  should  present  his  form  in  writing,  and  they  would  then  adopt  the 
one  deemed  best,  with  such  amendments  as  might  be  agreed  upon.  When 
the  sub-committee  met  to  examine  their  plans,  Mr.  Cooper  had  his  regular- 
ly drawn  up,  Mr.  Soule  also  had  one,  but  Mr.  Bruce  had  nothing  committed 
to  writing.  On  comparing  the  two  papers,  Mr.  Bruce  fell  in  with  the  main 
points  of  the  one  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Soule.  Mr.  Cooper  pleaded  for 
his  own  with  his  usual  ability,  but  he  finally  agreed  to  Mr.  Soule's  plan,  with 
some  slight  additions  or  amendments  suggested  by  the  others.  At  the  next 
meeting  of  the  whole  Committee,  although  the  plans  of  Messrs.  Cooper  and 
Soule  were  both  before  them,  Mr.  Soule's  was  adopted  by  all  the  members, 
with  some  slight  modifications.-j- 

Cooper  differed  from  Soule,  chiefly  if  not  exclusively,  on 
the  point  which  the  latter  embodied  in  the  third  restrictive 
rule  concerning  the  itinerant  general  superintendency. 
Cooper  was  an  ardent  advocate,  at  this  very  Conference, 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  78,  79. 

"j"  Compare,  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee's  Life  and  Times  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  441.  I  have 
preferred  to  insert  Dr.  Elliott's  testimony,  favorable  to  Bishop  Soule,  in  the 
text.    They  were  for  some  years  neighbors  in  Ohio. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


303 


for  the  election  of  seven  bishops,  one  for  each  Annual  Con- 
ference, thus  creating  a  species  of  diocesan  episcopacy, 
with  Asbury,  for  the  time  being,  as  a  sort  of  Archbishop. 
Cooper's  restriction  accordingly  ran  in  these  words,  "  They 
[the  General  Conference]  shall  not  do  away  Episcopacy, 
nor  reduce  our  ministry  to  a  presbyterial  parity."  Had  his 
view  prevailed,  it  might  have  been  urged  with  some  show  of 
truth  that  "  Our  Church  constitution  recognizes  the  Episco- 
pacy as  an  abstraction  "  and  leaves  the  General  Conference 
free  "to  work  it  into  a  concrete  form  in  any  hundred  or 
more  ways  we  may  be  able  to  invent,"  as  Mr.  HamHne,  of 
Ohio,  maintained  in  debate  on  the  floor  of  a  subsequent 
General  Conference,  which  was  working  under  this  "  con- 
stitution." *  But  Mr.  Soule's  restrictive  rule  was  quite  a 
different  thing.  According  to  its  provisions,  the  General 
Conference  "  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  fart  or  rule  of 
our  government,  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy,  or  destroy  the 
flan  of  our  itinerant  general  super intendency y  The  par- 
ticular, concrete  "  plan,"  with  all  the  vitally  related  parts  or 
rules  of  our  government,  described  then  in  the  Discipline  of 
the  Church,  and  familiar  to  all  the  members  of  the  Confer- 
ence, (which  plan  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  had  been 
operated  by  three  bishops,  and  which,  for  the  next  quarter 
of  a  century  was  to  be  operated  by  five  other  bishops,  all  of 
.whom  had  seats  in  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  and  one 
of  whom,  not  the  least  distinguished  of  their  number,  was 
the  author  of  the  restrictive  rule  which  protected  them  in  the 
exercise  of  their  constitutional  powers) — this  plan,  and  no 
other,  so  far  as  the  rules  and  regulations  enacted  by  the 
Delegated  General  Conference  were  concerned,  was  to  be 
perpetuated  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The 
snapping  of  the  mainspring  in  a  watch  destroys  its  plan  and 
its  value  as  a  timekeeper:  it  is  not  necessary  to  crush  the 
whole  into  atoms  with  a  trip-hammer.  So  the  rule  has 
stood,  in  Mr.  Soule's  language,  in  the  Disciplines  of  both 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.,  Debates,  pp.  131,  132;  Hibbard's  Life  of  Ham- 
line,  p.  460. 


304  Tlie  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


Episcopal  Methodisms  from  the  time  of  its  enactment  in 
1808  to  this  year  of  grace  1894.  By  it  every  Delegated 
General  Conference  that  has  ever  sat,  before  or  since  the 
division  of  the  Church,  has  been  bound.  The  issue  be- 
tween Soule  and  Cooper  was  joined  on  this  point.  Finally 
Bruce  sided  with  Soule;  Soule's  plan  was  submitted  to  the 
whole  committee  of  fourteen  and  adopted,  with  slight 
changes  which  did  not  touch  this  rule,  and  so  came  before 
the  Conference.* 

Thus  [says  Dr.  Elliott]  to  a  very  considerable  extent  we  owe  to  Bishop 
Soule  the  restrictive  regulations — or,  rather,  the  Constitution  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church — which  exhibits  a  degree  of  wisdom  and  prudent 
foresight  that  characterizes  men  of  the  first  mental  powers.  In  fact,  those 
who  know  Bishop  Soule  would  expect  from  him  the  wise  deliberation  nec- 
essary to  produce  such  a  measure  as  the  Constitutional  Restrictions  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.l 

Monday  morning,  May  16,  the  report  of  the  committee 
"  relative  to  regulating  and  perpetuating  General  Confer- 
ences," was  presented  to  the  Conference  as  follows: 

Section  III. — Of  the  General  Conference. 

1st.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  delegates  from  the 
Annual  Conferences. 

2d.  The  delegates  shall  be  chosen  by  ballot,  without  debate,  in  the  Annu- 
al Conferences  respectively,  in  the  last  meeting  of  Conference  previous  to 
the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference. 

3d.  Each  Annual  Conference  respectively  shall  have  a  right  to  send  sev- 
en elders,  members  of  their  Conference,  as  delegates  to  the  General  Con- 
ference. 

4th.  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  have  a  right  to  send  one  delegate,  in 
addition  to  the  seven,  for  every  ten  members  belonging  to  such  Conference 
over  and  above  fifty — so  that  if  there  be  sixty  members,  they  shall  send 
eight;  if  seventy,  they  shall  send  nine;  and  so  on,  in  proportion. 

5th.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  eighteen  hundred  and  twelve,  and  thenceforward  on  the 
first  day  of  May,  once  in  four  years  perpetually,  at  such  place  or  places  as 
shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Conference  from  time  to  time. 


*The  biographer  of  Jesse  Lee  (Life,  p.  443)  cites  from  the  Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  Mr.  Lee's 
motion  for  the  final  adoption  of  this  rule,  and  is  thus  misled  into  claiming  his  authorship  of  it. 
"  But  Bishop  Soule  undoubtedly  originated  h,"  says  Bishop  Paine,  "  the  above  explanations  [in- 
cluding the  statement  of  differences  between  Soule  and  Cooper]  are  from  the  lips  of  Bishop 
Soule  himself."— Painft's  McKendree,  I.  191. 

tLife  of  Bishop  Roberts,  p.  159. 


305 


6th.  At  all  times,  when  the  General  Conference  is  met,  it  shall  take  two- 
thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  delegates  to  form  a  quorum. 

7th.  One  of  the  original*  superintendents  shall  preside  in  the  General 
Conference;  but  in  case  no  general  superintendent  be  present,  the  General 
Conference  shall  choose  a  president tern.  v 

8th.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules,  regu- 
lations, and  canons  for  our  Church,  under  the  following  limitations  and  re- 
strictions, viz.: 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  Articles 
of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards  of  doctrine. 

They  shall  not  lessen  the  number  of  seven  delegates  from  each  Annual 
Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  greater  number  from  any  Annual  Conference 
than  is  provided  in  the  fourth  paragraph  of  this  section. 

They  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so  as 
to  do  away  episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  super- 
intendency. 

They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  General  Rules  of  the  United 
Societies. 

They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preachers  of 
trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal ;  neither  shall  they  do  away  the  priv- 
ileges of  our  members  of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  [and] 
of  an  appeal. 

They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern  or  of  the 
Charter  Fund  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  su- 
perannuated, supernumerary,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows, 
and  children. 

Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference 
succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions. 

The  Conference  proceeded  at  once  to  the  consideration 
of  the  report,  and  continued  the  debate  at  the  afternoon 
session.  Bangs  says  the  debate  continued  for  "  one  whole 
day,"  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  Journal.  All  the  evidence 
points  to  Jesse  Lee,  though  he  had  been  the  earhest  and 
most  persistent  advocate  of  a  Delegated  Conference,  as  the 
"most  prominent  opponent"  of  the  report,  both  in  commit- 
tee and  on  the  floor  of  the  Conference.  "  Mr.  Lee  is  un- 
derstood to  have  opposed  the  whole  thing  on  the  plea  of 
'Conference  rights,'  "  says  Bishop  Paine,  "  and  to  have  de- 
feated it  temporarily  by  advocating  seniority  in  preference 
to  the  election  of  delegates."    "  Others  joined  him  in  this 

•This  word  is  probably  a  clerical  error  or  misprint  tor  general:  It  disap- 
pears in  the  final  action. 
20 


3o6  The  J^uadrenmal  General  Conferences. 


opposition,  and  the  debate  was  animated  and  protracted," 
says  Lee's  biographer,  "  but  this  was  the  strong  point,  and 
Mr.  Lee  led  the  van  of  the  attack."  *  At  this  juncture  of 
the  debate,  late  in  the  afternoon,  when  the  report  had  been 
before  the  Conference  since  the  opening  of  the  morning 
session,  Ezekiel  Cooper,  seconded  by  Joshua  Wells,  carried 
a  motion  "  to  postpone  the  present  question  to  make  room  for 
the  consideration  of  a  new  resolution,  as  preparatory  to  the 
minds  of  the  brethren  to  determine  on  the  present  subject;" 
whereupon  he  and  Wells  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion, "  That  in  the  fifth  section  of  DiscipHne,  after  the  ques- 
tion, '  By  whom  shall  the  presiding  elders  be  chosen?'  the 
answer  shall  be,  'Afzs.  ist.  Each  annual  conference  respect- 
ively, without  debate,  shall  annually  choose,  by  ballot,  its 
own  presiding  elders.'  "  t 

At  this  point,  a  few  observations  will  explain  this  sudden 
turn  of  Cooper's,  who  was  a  masterly  strategist  in  debate. 
( I )  The  motion  of  McClaskey  and  Cooper  for  seven  addi- 
tional bishops  had  been  defeated.  Seeing  its  hopelessness, 
they  had  sought  to  withdraw  it,  but  Pickering  and  Soule  had 
forced  a  vote  upon  it,  that  diocesan  episcopacy  might  be 
killed  by  formal  vote  of  the  Conference.  This  action  was 
in  line  with  the  differences,  developed  between  Cooper  and 
Soule  in  committee,  whose  report  was  yet  to  be  presented. 
The  Conference  decided  on  the  election  of  one  additional 
bishop,  and  Thursday  afternoon.  May  12,  McKendree  re- 
ceived ninety-five  out  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  votes 
on  the  first  ballot. J  (2)  As  the  next  best  thing  to  a  dioce- 
san episcopacy,  Cooper  and  others  desired  an  elective  pre- 
siding eldership,  and  this  opportunity  was  considered  a  good 
one  for  carrying  a  measure  that  had  been  frequently  de- 
feated, chiefly  by  those  who  now  sought  a  Delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference.  (3)  The  Conference  recognized  the  per- 
tinency of  this  resolution  to  the  measure  under  considera- 
tion, and  so  turned  aside  to  settle  first  the  fate  of  this  motion 

*Life  of  Lee,  p.  442.  f  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  83. 

J  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  1. 80,  81. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


307 


for  an  elective  presiding  eldership.  It  had  no  vital  relation, 
however,  to  any  part  of  the  report  of  the  committee  ex- 
cept the  third  restrictive  rule.  An  elective  presiding  elder- 
ship would  be  a  "rule  of  our  government"  entering  into 
the  "plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,"  and, 
by  deciding  this  question  before  the  adoption  of  the  report 
of  the  committee,  and  "  as  preparatory  to  the  minds  of  the 
brethren  to  determine"  on  that  report,  this  last  General 
Conference  of  unHmited  and  supreme  powers,  would  more 
narrowly  and  concretely  define  the  powers  of  the  Delegated 
General  Conference,  which  it  was  about  to  create;  just  as 
the  defeat  of  Cooper's  proposed  restrictive  rule  in  committee, 
and  of  his  plan  for  a  bishop  of  each  Annual  Conference  on 
the  floor  of  the  General  Conference,  had  also  contributed 
to  the  better  determination  of  the  kind  of  superintendency 
which  the  Delegated  General  Conference  must  continue  in 
the  Church.  The  final  adoption  of  Soule's  restrictive  rule 
fixed  the  character  of  this  superintendency  in  the  most  com- 
prehensive, ("  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,")  and  yet 
the  most  concrete,  ("itinerant  general  superintendency,") 
form  conceivable. 

The  step  from  the  facts  to  these  statements  is  so  short  as 
hardly  to  deserve  the  name  of  inference;  it  is  little  more 
than  interpretation.  Yet  short  as  it  is,  we  are  not  left  to  it 
to  establish  the  conclusion.    Mr.  McKendree  says: 

When  the  report  of  the  Committee  which  was  appointed  to  draw  up  a 
constitution  was  before  the  General  Conference,  a  member  moved  the  post- 
ponement of  that  subject  for  the  express  purpose  of  bringing  in  a  motion  to 
authorize  the  Annual  Conferences  to  elect  the  Presiding  Elders.  It  was 
done;  and  that  body,  who  had  as  much  right  to  introduce  the  proposed  al- 
teration as  they  had  to  form  the  constitution,  took  up  the  proposition,  amply 
discussed  the  subject,  and  rejected  it.  The  friends  of  the  proposed  alteration 
thought  the  constitution  would  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  Delegated 
Conference  to  effect  the  desired  change,  and  therefore  proposed  to  make  the 
alteration  before  the  constitution  was  ratified.  But  the  preachers  preferred 
the  old  plan,  and  therefore  rejected  the  motion.  After  twenty  years'  expe- 
rience, and  with  the  constitution  fully  before  them,  they  refused  to  invest 
the  Annual  Conferences  with  power  to  elect  Presiding  Elders,  and  at  the 
moment  of  constituting  the  Delegated  Conference,  deliberately  confirmed  it, 
and  continued  it  'in  the  General  Superintendents,  with  whom  it  had  been 


3o8 


The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


intrusted  from  the  beginning.  The  Presiding  Elders  never  were  elected  by 
the  preachers,  either  in  their  Annual  or  General  Conference  capacity,  but 
were  from  their  commencement  chosen  by  the  General  Superintendents, 
with  the  consent  of  the  preachers  collectively;  and  this  rule  was  ratified  and 
confirmed  by  the  same  authority  that  constituted  the  Delegated  Conference.* 

We  may  now  return  to  the  course  of  affairs  on  the  floor  of 
the  General  Conference.  Tuesday  morning  was  spent  in 
debate  on  Cooper's  motion  for  electing  presiding  elders,  and 
at  the  close  of  the  session  Soule,  seconded  by  Beale, 
moved  what  we  should  now  call  the  previous  question, 
which  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  6i  to  33.  The  debate  was 
continued  the  whole  of  Tuesday  afternoon,  during  which 
time  the  previous  question  was  moved  twice,  once  by  Soule, 
and  postponement  once;  but  all  three  motions  were  lost. 
Wednesday  morning  dawned,  and  thus  far  the  whole  week 
had  been  spent,  Monday  on  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
a  Delegated  General  Conference,  and  Tuesday  on  the  cog- 
nate matter  of  the  election  of  presiding  elders.  The  fathers 
were  not  destitute  of  a  keen  sense  of  humor,  and  the  first 
gun  of  the  third  day's  battle  was  fired  by  Thomas  F.  Sar- 
gent and  Francis  Ward,  who  moved,  "that  the  motion  for 
electing  presiding  elders  be  postponed  until  the  fifteenth  day 
of  August  next,"  which  motion  was  lost.  Sabin  and  Soule 
then  moved  the  previous  question  once  more  and  this  time  it 
carried.  Garrettson  and  Sparks  secured  the  passage  of  an 
order  that  the  vote  should  be  taken  by  ballot,  and  when  the 
tickets  were  counted,  there  were  52  votes  for  the  election  of 
presiding  elders,  73  against.  Thus  in  a  full  house  of  125 
members,  the  motion  to  elect  presiding  elders  was  defeated 
by  a  majority  of  twenty-one. f 

Immediately  after  taking  this  ballot,  Wednesday  morning, 
May  18,  1808,  William  McKendree  was  ordained  a  bishop 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — its  first  native  Ameri- 
can General  Superintendent.  His  episcopal  parchment, 
with  the  signatures  of  Francis  Asbury,  Jesse  Lee,  Freeborn 
Garrettson,  Thomas  Ware,  and  Philip  Bruce,  all  clearly  leg- 
ible, and  dated  as  above,  now  lies  before  the  writer  of  these 

*Paine's  McKendree,  II.  367,  368.    |Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  83,  84. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808.  309 

lines.  His  ordination  took  place  at  the  close  of  the  exhaust- 
ive debate  on  the  presiding  elder  question,  and  immediately 
after  its  decision.  We  shall  not  anticipate  the  course  of  our 
history;  but,  at  a  later  date,  this  bishop,  supported  by  Josh- 
ua Soule,  then  a  bishop-elect  but  declining  ordination,  felt  it 
his  duty  to  take  a  stand  against  the  constitutionality  of  a 
measure  providing  for  the  election  of  presiding  elders,  he 
and  Soule  alike  basing  their  objection  on  the  third  restrict- 
ive rule.  Is  it  probable  that  McKendree,  ordained  under 
these  circumstances,  and  Soule,  the  author  of  the  third  re- 
strictive rule,  should  have  been  mistaken  as  to  the  purport 
of  its  terms? 

Wednesday  afternoon,  it  was  "  moved  by  John  McClas- 
key,  and  seconded  by  Daniel  Ostrander,  that  the  vote  on 
the  first  resolution  of  the  report  of  the  committee  of  four- 
teen be  taken  by  ballot,"  and  the  motion  prevailed.  When 
the  ballot  was  counted  "  there  were  yeas  57,  nays  64,"  and 
the  first  resolution  of  the  report  was  lost.  This  carried  with 
it  the  defeat  of  the  whole  measure,  for  the  first  resolution 
read,  "  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  dele- 
gates from  the  Annual  Conferences."  The  memorialists 
had  won  in  committee :  they  were  now  defeated  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

Great  excitement  ensued,  for  the  measure  was  lost,  it  was 
believed,  principally  by  the  votes  of  the  Philadelphia  and 
Baltimore  Conferences.  "This  defeat,"  says  Dr.  Lee, 
"was  a  source  of  surprise  and  sorrow."*  "Asbury  and 
other  chief  advocates  of  the  measure,"  says  Stevens, 
"were  profoundly  afflicted."  t  "The  New  England  dele- 
gates asked  leave  of  absence,"  says  McTyeire,  "  stating 
that  they  were  not  disposed  to  make  any  faction,  but  they 
considered  their  presence  useless.  The  Western  delegates 
were  in  no  pleasant  mood.  '  Burke's  brow  gathered  a  sol- 
emn frown;  Sale  and  others  looked  sad;  as  for  poor  Lakin, 
he  wept  like  a  child.'  "  %    "  When  the  vote  announcing  the 

*  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  442.  t  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  IV.  440. 

JHist.  of  Meth.,  p.  512. 


3IO  The  .Quadrennial  Gene?-al  Conferences. 


failure  of  the  plan  was  declared,"  says  Bishop  Clark, 
"great  dissatisfaction  was  manifested;  and  fears  were  at 
one  time  entertained  that  the  Conference  would  break  up 
without  establishing  any  general  bond  of  union  among  the 
widely-scattered  portions  of  the  work.  Many  of  the  preach- 
ers from  the  remote  Conferences  resolved  to  leave  immedi- 
ately, and  return  home.  It  was  a  crisis  in  the  affairs  of  the 
Church,  then  in  the  infancy  of  its  organization.  '  Had  they 
left  at  this  crisis,'  says  Mr.  Hedding,  'it  would  probably 
have  been  the  last  General  Conference  ever  held.'  All  the 
members  from  the  New  England  Conference,  except  him- 
self, were  making  arrangements  to  depart.  In  this  emer- 
gency he  entreated  them  to  remain."*  "Six  members 
from  New  England  and  two  from  the  West  retired  in  a 
body,"  says  Bishop  Paine,  "and  began  to  make  prepara- 
tions for  their  journey.  But  Bishop  Asbury  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Kendree  sought  an  interview  with  them  .  .  .  and,  aid- 
ed by  the  wise  and  prudent  Elijah  Hedding,  prevailed  upon 
them  to  wait  a  day  and  see  if  a  reconsideration  of  the  ques- 
tion could  not  be  effected,  leading  to  a  different  result."! 
The  central  Conferences  now  saw  the  necessity  of  action  if 
the  unity  of  the  Church  was  to  be  assured. 

Thus  matters  stood  from  Wednesday  afternoon,  when  the 
adverse  vote  was  taken,  until  the  following  Monday  morning, 
May  23.  The  subject  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  next  Gen- 
eral Conference  being  before  the  house,  Leonard  Cassell 
and  Stephen  G.  Roszel  moved,  what  was  in  fact  but  not  in 
form,  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote  by  which  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  fourteen  had  been  rejected,  namely,  "  that 
the  motion  for  considering  when  and  where  the  next  Gener- 
al Conference  shall  be,  lie  over  until  it  be  determined  who 
shall  compose  the  General  Conference."  This  motion  pre- 
vailed, whereupon  Enoch  George,  seconded  by  Roszel, 
moved  "  that  the  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of 
one  member  for  every  five  members  of  each  Annual  Confer- 
ence," which  was  "  carried  by  a  large  majority."    This  was 

*Life  of  Bishop  Hedding,  pp.  172,  173.    "fLife  of  McKendree,  I.  191. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


311 


a  simple  substitute  for  the  somewhat  complex  recommenda- 
tion of  the  committee,  contained  in  the  third  and  fourth 
items  of  their  report.  The  question  now  recurred  on  the 
method  of  appointment  of  these  delegates  and,  according  to 
the  Journal,  Joshua  Soule,  seconded  by  George  Pickering, 
moved  that  '*  each  Annual  Conference  shall  have  the  power 
of  sending  their  proportionate  number  of  members  to  the 
General  Conference,  either  by  seniority  or  choice,  as  they 
shall  think  best."  This  was  Soule's  method  of  closing  the 
mouth  of  Jesse  Lee,  whose  biographer  gives  us  a  precise 
and  interesting  account  of  the  adoption  of  this  measure, 
which  substituted  the  second  item  of  the  committee's  report: 

At  a  pause  in  the  discussion,  Mr.  Soule  moved  to  amend  the  article  so  as 
to  read,  "to  be  appointed  by  seniority  or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such 
Annual  Conference."  This  motion,  if  it  did  not  put  him  [Lee]  in  a  dilem- 
ma, neutralized  his  opposition,  and  he  was  speechless.  Mr.  Soule  knew  Mr. 
Lee  was  as  inveterate  an  advocate  of  the  independent  rights  of  the  Confer- 
ences, as  he  was  of  the  condition  of  seniority  in  constituting  the  General 
Conference;  and,  with  a  sagacity  that  has  not  yet  failed  him,  he  placed  his 
strongest  adversary  between  the  cross-fires  of  his  own  favorite  doctrines.  As 
amended,  it  maintained  the  independence  of  the  Conferences,  and  commit- 
ted to  the  custody  of  that  independence  the  very  condition  he  defended  as 
the  proper  basis  of  representation.  His  point  was  gained;  but  he  felt  that 
he  had  lost  a  victory.  But  he  submitted ;  and,  walking  up  to  his  friend,  poked 
him  in  the  side  with  his  finger  and  whispered,  "  Brother  Soule,  you've 
played  me  a  Yankee  trick!  "* 

Soule's  motion  was  carried  at  the  afternoon  session.  It 
was  then  decided  that  the  next  General  Conference  should 
meet  in  New  York,  May  i,  1812.  All  the  general  assem- 
blies of  the  Church  had,  thus  far,  been  held  in  Baltimore: 
the  First  Delegated  General  Conference  assembled  in  New 
York.  At  the  same  session,  on  the  motion  of  Roszel,  second- 
ed by  Lee,  it  was  determined  that  "  two  thirds  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  "  shall  be  necessa- 
ry for  a  quorum  in  the  General  Conference.  Tuesday 
morning.  May  24,  the  business  concerning  the  Delegated 
General  Conference  was  rapidly  completed,  as  follows: 

Moved  by  Jesse  Lee,  and  seconded  by  William  Burke,  that  the  next|  Gen- 

*Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  442,  443. 

t  By  this  word  Lee  means  the  Delegated  as  distinct  from  the  old  General  Conference.  In 
his  history  he  speaks  of  1808  as  "  the  last  General  Conference." 


312  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


eral  Conference  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  govern- 
ment, so  as  to  do  awaj  episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant 
general  superintendency.  Carried. 

Moved  by  Steven  G.  Roszel,  and  seconded  by  George  Pickering,  that  one 
of  the  superintendents  preside  in  the  General  Conference;  but  in  case  of  the 
absence  of  a  superintendent  the  Conference  shall  elect  a  president  pro  tetn. 
Carried. 

Moved  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  and  seconded  by  Nelson  Reed,  that  the 
General  Conference  shall  have  full  pow^ers  to  make  rules  and  regulations 
for  our  Church,  under  the  following  restrictions,  viz.: — 

1 .  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  Articles 
of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine,  contrary 
to  our  present  existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine.  Carried. 

2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative,  for  every  five 
members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for 
every  seven.  Carried. 

Moved  by  Daniel  Hitt,  and  seconded  by  Samuel  Coate,  that  a  commit- 
tee of  three  be  appointed  to  modify  certain  exceptionable  expressions  in  the 
General  Rules.  Lost. 

3.  They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  "  General  Rules  of  the  United 
Societies."  Carried. 

4.  They  shall  not  do  away  with  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preach- 
ers of  trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal;  neither  shall  they  do  away  with 
the  privileges  of  our  members  of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee, 
and  of  an  appeal.  Carried. 

5.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern  or  of  the 
Charter  Fund  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  su- 
pernumerary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows, 
and  children.  Carried. 

6.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the 
Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence succeeding  shall  suflnce  to  alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions.    Carried.  * 

In  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  on  motion  of  Ostrander, 
seconded  by  Cooper,  it  was  agreed  "  that  the  general  super- 
intendents, with  or  by  the  advice  of  all  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, or,  if  there  be  no  general  superintendent,  all  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  respectively,  shall  have  power  to  call  a 
General  Conference,  if  they  judge  it  necessary,  at  any  time." 
It  was  then  "  moved  from  the  chair,"  i.  e.,  by  Bishop  As- 
bury,  "  that  the  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first 
day  of  May  once  in  four  years,  perpetually,  at  such  place 
or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Conference 
from  time  to  time."t    Finally,  late  on  Thursday  afternoon, 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  89.    ■\  Ibid.,  I.  90. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


313 


just  before  the  final  adjournment  of  the  General  Conference, 
on  motion  of  Totten,  seconded  by  Roszel,  it  was  decided 
"that  no  preacher  shall  be  sent  as  a  representative  to  the 
General  Conference,  until  he  has  traveled  at  least  four  full 
calendar  years  from  the  time  that  he  was  received  on  trial 
by  an  Annual  Conference,  and  is  in  full  connection  at  the 
time  of  holding  the  Conference."  * 

Thus  has  been  presented  to  the  reader,  in  chronological 
order,  the  entire  history  of  the  legislation  of  1808  concerning 
a  Delegated  General  Conference.  The  skillful  hand  of  the 
editor  or  editors  of  the  Discipline  of  1808  effected  a  logical 
combination  of  the  whole  in  a  section  which  does  not  deviate 
from  the  action  of  the  Conference  by  a  hair's  breadth,  as 
follows : 

^ucs.  2.  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference,  and  what  are  the 
regulations  and  powers  belonging  to  it? 

Ans.  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for 
every  five  members  of  each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  appointed  either  by 
seniority  or  choice, at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual  Conference;  yet  so  that 
such  representatives  shall  have  traveled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years 
from  the  time  that  they  are  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual  Conference,  and 
are  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding  the  Conference. 

2.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  1812,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  thenceforward  on  the 
first  day  of  May  once  in  four  years,  perpetually,  in  such  place  or  places  as 
shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Conference  from  time  to  time.  But  the 
general  superintendents,  with  or  by  the  advice  of  all  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, or,  if  there  be  no  general  superintendent,  all  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences respectively,  shall  have  power  to  call  a  General  Conference,  if  they 
judge  it  necessary,  at  any  time. 

3.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Conferences  meet,  it  shall  take  two- 
thirds  of  the  representatives  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  to  make  a  quo- 
rum for  transacting  business. 

4.  One  of  the  general  superintendents  shall  preside  in  the  General  Con- 
ference; but  in  case  no  general  superintendent  be  present,  the  General 
Conference  shall  choose  a  president  pro  tempore. 

5.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and 
regulations  for  our  Church,  under  the  following  limitations  and  restrictions, 
viz. : 

1.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  Articles 
of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to 
our  present  existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine. 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  95. 


314  I'f^^  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for  every  five 
members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one 
for  every  seven. 

3.  They  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so 
as  to  do  away  episcopacy  or  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  su- 
perintendency. 

4.  They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  General  Rules  of  the  United  So- 
cieties. 

5.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preachers  of 
trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal.  Neither  shall  they  do  away  the 
privileges  of  our  members  of  trial  before  the  society  or  by  a  committee,  and 
of  an  appeal. 

6.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the 
Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling, 
supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows, 
and  children. 

Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the 
Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions.* 

The  Twenty-first  Delegated  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  met  at  Omaha,  Neb., 
in  May,  1892,  adopted,  in  lieu  of  the  first  part  of  the  report 
of  its  able  Constitutional  Commission,  appointed  four  years 
before,  what  is  known  as  the  Goucher  substitute,  the  mate- 
rial part  of  which  follows : 

The  section  on  the  General  Conference  in  the  Discipline  of  1808  [name- 
ly, the  entire  instrument  cited  above  in  full],  as  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1808,  has  the  nature  and  force  of  a  Constitution. 

That  section,  together  with  such  modifications  as  have  been  adopted  since 
that  time  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  for  amendment  in  that  section, 
is  the  present  Constitution,  etc.f 

The  writer  of  these  lines  had  the  pleasure  of  listening  to 
the  very  able  debate,  which  closed  with  the  adoption  of  Dr. 
Goucher' s  substitute  and  Dr.  Buckley's  motion  for  the  in- 
definite postponement  of  the  remainder  of  the  report  of  the 
Commission.  That  report  recommended  that  under  the 
heading  of  "  The  Organic  Law  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,"  the  Discipline  should  contain,  "Part  I.  Articles 
of  Religion;"  "Part  11.  The  General  Rules;"  and  "Part 

*  Discipline  of  1808,  pp.  14-16;  Emory,  Hist.,  ed.  of  1844,  pp.  111-114. 
•f-Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  XII.,  1892,  pp.  206,  228. 


The  General  Conference  of  i8oS. 


315 


III.  Constitution  and  Powers  of  the  General  Conference."  * 
The  Constitution  of  the  General  Conference,  as  reported  by 
the  Commission,  contained  somewhat  more,  however,  than 
that  defined  in  Dr.  Goucher's  substitute,  which,  by  the  ac- 
tion of  the  General  Conference,  has  become  the  authorita- 
tive definition  of  the  Constitution,  as  accepted  by  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  That  the  Articles  of  Religion,  the 
General  Rules  (which  embrace  the  only  terms  of  member- 
ship and  communion  in  Methodism),  and  the  Constitution  of 
the  General  Conference  make  up  the  organic  law  of  Ameri- 
can Episcopal  Methodism,  there  is  no  question.  There  is 
also  universal  agreement  that  the  whole  of  the  fifth  answer 
to  Question  2,  as  estabhshed  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1808,  and  cited  above,  including  the  empowering  clause, ' '  The 
General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules 
and  regulations  for  our  Church,"  and  the  six  restrictive 
rules,  with  the  proviso  for  their  amendment,  generally 
known  as  the  "constitutional"  or  "restrictive  rule"  proc- 
ess, together  with  such  alterations  as  have  been  introduced 
by  this  process, — i.  e.,  by  the  concurrent  action  of  General 
and  Annual  Conferences  by  the  constitutional  majorities, — 
is  included  in  the  Constitution  of  the  General  Conference. 
Whether  the  four  preceding  answers  to  Question  2,  enacted 
likewise  by  the  last  General  Conference  of  unlimited  au- 
thority, by  which  (i)  the  composition,  (2)  the  quadrennial 
and  extra  sessions,  (3)  the  quorum,  and  (4)  the  presidency 
of  the  Delegated  General  Conference,  are  defined,  are  like- 
wise a  part  of  the  Constitution,  is  a  question  about  which 
there  is  difference  of  opinion.  Dr.  Goucher's  substitute, 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1892,  authoritatively 
commits  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  the  inclusion  of 
these  four  answers  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Delegated 
General  Conference.  There  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of 
this  view;  but  in  this  history,  we  are  not  called  upon  to  en- 
ter upon  the  merits  of  this  controversy  as  an  abstract  question. 
It  will  be  brought  before  us  in  concrete  form  by  the  action  of 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  XII.,  1892,  p.  394. 


3i6  The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


Delegated  General  Conferences  of  both  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Churches  in  modifying  this  portion  of  the  Discipline.* 
It  remains,  in  pursuance  of  our  plan,  to  notice  the  action 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1808  with  regard  to  Bishop 
Coke,  and  also  its  action  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  This 
was  the  first  time  the  Doctor  had  been  absent  from  a  Gen- 
eral Conference.  In  1804  his  recall  to  America  had  been 
made  subject  to  the  action  of  any  three  Annual  Conferences. 
The  Doctor  in  April,  1805,  had  married  Miss  Penelope 
Goulding  Smith,  a  lady  of  ample  fortune,  who  proposed  to 
devote  it  to  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of  missions,  which 
lay  so  near  her  husband's  heart  and  her  own.  In  June, 
1805,  Dr.  Coke  addressed  a  circular  to  the  American  preach- 
ers, saying;  "As  long  as  he  [Asbury]  can  regularly  visit 
the  seven  Annual  Conferences,  you  do  not  want  me.  But 
if  he  was  so  debilitated  that  he  could  not  attend  the  seven 
Conferences,  I  should  be  willing  to  come  over  to  you  for 
life,  on  the  express  condition  that  the  seven  Conferences 
should  be  divided  betwixt  us  [Asbury  and  himself],  three 
and  four,  and  four  and  three,  each  of  us  changing  our  divis- 
ions annually;  and  that  this  plan,  at  all  events,  should  con- 
tinue permanent  and  unalterable  during  both  our  lives."  t 
This  proposal,  which  strangely  and  unpardonably  over- 
looked the  position  of  Bishop  Whatcoat,  who  was  then  en- 
gaged in  the  active  discharge  of  his  episcopal  duties,  and 
which  took  the  plan  of  superintendency  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  General  Conference  as  long  as  Coke  and  Asbury  were 
both  alive,  the  Conferences  very  properly  declined.  Bishop 
Coke  addressed  two  letters  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1808,  one  with  regard  to  his  relations  to  American  Metho- 
dism, dated  Nov.  26,  1807,  and  the  other,  dated  Jan.  29, 
1808,  explanatory  of  his  negotiations  with  Bishop  White,  in 
1 791,  which,  in  1804,  and  afterwards,  through  a  breach  of 

*For  details,  see  Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  XII.,  1892,  pp.  94,  132,  170,  206,  227, 
228,  390-400.  For  the  debates,  see  Daily  Christian  Advocate,  1892,  for  May 
II,  12,  and  13. 

I  An  original  copy  of  this  circular,  which  Dr.  Coke  printed,  addressed  to 
Martin  Ruter,  lies  before  nie. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


317 


confidence,  had  become  public  and  had  excited  much  "  un- 
circumcised  rejoicing"  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  body. 
These  two  letters,  together  with  an  address  from  the  British 
Conference,  were  referred  to  two  committees,  one  to  report 
on  the  case  of  Dr.  Coke,  and  one  on  correspondence.* 

In  his  second  letter,  Coke  briefly  recapitulates  the  contents 
of  the  first,  "  that  if  you  judged  that  my  being  with  you 
would  help  to  preserve  your  union,  and  if  I  was  allowed  to 
give  my  opinion  or  judgment  on  every  station  of  the  preach- 
ers as  far  as  I  chose,  and  upon  everj^thing  else  that  could 
come  under  the  inspection  of  the  bishops,  or  superintend- 
ents, you  might  call  me,  and  we  would  settle  our  affairs  in 
Europe  as  soon  as  possible  and  sail  for  America  and  be  with 
you  for  life.  Without  your  compliance  in  the  latter  point — 
namely,  in  respect  to  a  full  right  in  giving  my  judgment — I 
should  be  so  far  from  being  useful  in  preserving  union  that  I 
should  merely  fill  the  place  of  a  preacher."  He  explains  at 
length  his  proposals  for  union  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  In  simple  justice  to  Dr.  Coke  we  must  remember  ( i ) 
that  his  office  as  a  Methodist  bishop  did  not  deprive  him  of 
his  position  as  a  presbyter  in  the  Church  of  England,  which 
character  he  maintained,  like  Wesley,  to  the  day  of  his  death ; 
(2)  that  the  disastrous  experiment  of  the  Council  had  just 
failed;  (3)  that  the  O'Kelly  and  Hammett  schisms  were 
threatening  the  unity  of  American  Methodism;  (4)  that  no 
General  Conference  had  yet  been  established;  (5)  that  there 
was  alienation  between  Asbury  and  Coke;  and  (6)  that  be- 
fore his  departure  from  the  continent,  Coke  learned  of  Wes- 
ley's death,  and  was  alarmed  for  the  stability  of  English,  no 
less  than  of  American,  Methodism.  After  mentioning  most  of 
these  points,  Coke,  in  his  letter  to  the  General  Conference 
of  1808,  continues: 

I  did  verily  believe  then  that,  under  God,  the  Connection  would  be  more 
likely  to  be  saved  from  convulsions  by  a  union  with  the  old  Episcopal  Church 
than  any  other  way — not  by  a  dereliction  of  ordination,  sacraments,  and  the 
Methodist  Discipline,  but  by  a  junction  on  proper  terms.  Bishop  White,  in 
two  interviews  1  had  with  him  in  Philadelphia,  gave  me  reason  to  believe 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  73. 


3i8  The  .Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


that  this  junction  might  be  accomplished  with  ease.  Dr.  Magaw  was  per- 
fectly sure  of  it.  Indeed  (if  Mr.  Ogden,  of  New  Jersey,  did  not  mistake  in 
the  information  he  gave  me),  a  canon  passed  the  House  of  Bishops  of  the 
old  Episcopal  Church  in  favor  of  it.  Bishop  Madison,  according  to  the  same 
information,  took  the  canon  to  the  lower  house.  "  But  it  was  there  thrown 
out,"  said  Mr.  Ogden,  to  whom  I  explained  the  whole  business,  "because 
they  did  not  understand  the  full  meaning  of  it."  Mr.  Ogden  added  that  he 
spoke  against  it  because  he  did  not  understand  it,  but  that  it  would  have  met 
with  his  warm  support  had  he  understood  the  full  intention  of  it. 

I  had  provided  in  the  fullest  manner  in  my  indispensable,  necessary  con- 
ditions for  the  security  and,  I  may  say,  for  the  independence  of  our  disci- 
pline and  places  of  worship.  But  I  thought  (perhaps  erroneously,  and  I  be- 
lieve so  no7v)  that  our  field  of  action  would  have  been  exceedingly  enlarged 
by  that  junction,  and  that  myriads  would  have  attended  our  ministry  in  con- 
sequence of  it  who  were  at  that  time  much  prejudiced  against  us.  All 
things  unitedly  considered  led  me  to  write  the  letter  and  meet  Bishop 
White  and  Dr.  Magaw  on  the  subject  in  Philadelphia.  .  .  .  Therefore, 
I  have  no  doubt  but  my  consecration  of  Bishop  Asbury  was  perfectly  valid, 
and  would  have  been  so  even  if  he  had  been  reconsecrated.  I  never  did  ap- 
ply to  the  general  convention  or  any  other  convention  for  reconsecration.  I 
never  intended  that  either  Bishop  Asbury  or  myself  should  give  up  our 
episcopal  office  if  the  junction  were  to  take  place. 

Bishop  Coke's  letter  to  Dr.  White  had  closed  with  the  re- 
quest, "  that  if  you  have  no  thoughts  of  improving  this  pro- 
posal, you  will  burn  this  letter  and  take  no  more  notice  of 
it."  On  the  contrary,  in  later  years  it  was  published  by  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  a  dioce- 
san controversy.  In  his  Memoirs,*  Bishop  White  says, 
"  Dr.  Coke's  letter  was  answered  by  the  author  with  the  re- 
serve which  seemed  incumbent  on  one  who  was  incompetent 
to  decide  with  effect  on  the  proposal  made."  No  doubt 
the  good  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  in  later  years,  regarded 
this  as  a  fair  account  of  his  share  in  a  correspondence 
which  issued  in  nothing.  But  in  his  reply  to  Bishop  Coke, 
he  said,  "  I  can  say  of  the  one  and  the  other  [of  two  diffi- 
culties mentioned  by  Coke]  that  I  do  not  think  them  insu- 
perable, provided  there  be  a  conciliatory  disposition  on  both 
sides,"  and  again,  "In  this  situation,  it  is  rather  to  be  ex- 
pected that  distinct  Churches,  agreeing  in  fundamentals, 
should  make  mutual  sacrifices  for  a  union  than  that  any 
Church  should  divide  into  two  bodies  without  a  difference 


*  Page  197. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


319 


being  even  alleged  to  exist  in  any  leading  point.  For  the  pre- 
venting of  this  the  measures  which  you  may  propose  cannot 
fail  of  success,  unless  there  be  on  one  side,  or  on  both,  a  most 
lamentable  deficiency  of  Christian  tem-per^  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  Bishop  Madison's  proposals  for  union  passed  the  House 
of  Bishops — consisting  then  of  four  persons,  Seabury,  White, 
Provoost,  and  Madison — in  the  General  Convention  of  1792 ; 
but  were  thrown  out  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Dep- 
uties.* 

Commenting  on  this  transaction  a  judicious  authority  says : 

It  was  to  be  a  union,  where  both  parties  made  concessions  and  got  advan- 
tages, but  neither  was  absorbed.  .  .  He  [Coke]  verily  thought  each 
Church  could  bring  to  the  other  some  element  of  strength  in  their  day 
of  weakness.  .  .  .  The  worst,  the  inexcusable  part  of  this  pragmatism 
is  that  Asbury  was  at  his  side  when  Coke  wrote  the  letter,  and  was  not  taken 
into  his  confidence.| 

Coke's  letter  to  White  bore  date,  April  24,  1791.  April 
25,  Asbury  records  in  his  Journal,  "  I  found  the  Doctor  had 
much  changed  his  sentiments  since  his  last  visit  to  this  con- 
tinent, and  that  these  impressions  still  continued.  I  hope  to 
be  enabled  to  give  up  all  I  dare  for  peace  sake,  and  to  please 
all  men  for  their  good  to  edification."  Thus  Asbury  was  in 
an  approachable  mood,  and  Coke  missed  his  opportunity. 
He  declares,  however,  in  his  letter  to  the  General  Conference, 
that  at  Newcastle,  Del.,  before  sailing  for  England,  he  laid 
the  matter  before  Asbury,  "  who,  with  that  caution  which 
peculiarly  characterizes  him,  gave  me  no  decisive  opinion 
on  the  subject." 

The  final  form  of  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1808  in  Bishop  Coke's  case  was: 

That  the  General  Conference  do  agree  and  consent  that  Dr.  Coke  may 
continue  in  Europe  till  he  be  called  to  the  United  States  by  the  General 
Conference,  or  by  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  respectively;  that  we  retain 
a  grateful  remembrance  of  the  services  and  labors  of  Dr.  Coke  among  us, 
and  the  thanks  of  this  Conference  are  hereby  acknowledged  to  him,  and  to 
God,  for  all  his  labors  of  love  toward  us,  from  the  time  he  first  left  his  native 
country  to  serve  us;  that  Dr.  Coke's  name  shall  be  retained  on  our  Minutes 
after  the  name  of  the  Bishops  in  a  N.  B. — "  Dr.  Coke,  at  the  request  of  the  Brit- 
ish Conference,  and  by  the  consent  of  General  Conference,  resides  in  Eu- 


*  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  pp.  195-199.   tMcTyeire,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  p.  516. 


320  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


rope;"  he  is  not  to  exercise  the  office  of  superintendent  or  bishop  among  us 
in  the  United  States  until  he  be  recalled  by  the  General  Conference,  or  by 
all  the  annual  conferences  respectively;  that  the  committee  of  correspond- 
ence be  and  are  hereby  directed  to  draft  two  letters,  one  to  the  British  Con- 
ference, the  other  to  Dr.  Coke,  in  answer  to  their  respective  letters  to  us, 
and  therein  communicating  to  them  respectively  the  contents  of  the  above 
resolutions* 

In  his  earlier  letter  to  the  General  Conference  Dr.  Coke 
had  suggested  an  "  N.  B.  Dr.  Coke  (or  Bishop  Coke,  as 
you  please)  resides  in  Europe  till  he  be  called  to  the  States 
by  the  General  Conference  or  by  the  Annual  Conferences," 
and  thus  the  final  action  in  1808  was  conformed  very  closely 
to  his  wishes.  In  their  reply  to  Dr.  Coke,  the  committee  of 
correspondence  say,  among  other  things: 

Your  two  letters  were  respectfully  received  and  had  a  salutary  effect 
upon  our  minds.  .  .  .  You  may  be  assured  that  we  feel  an  affectionate 
regard  for  you ;  that  we  gratefully  remember  your  repeated  labors  of  love 
toward  us;  and  that  we  sensibly  feel  our  obligations  for  the  services  you 
have  rendered  us.  .  .  .  In  full  Conference,  of  near  one  hundred  and 
thirty  members,  we  entered  into  a  very  long  conversation,  and  very  serious 
and  solemn  debate  upon  sundry  resolutions  which  were  laid  before  us  rela- 
tive to  your  case.  Probably  on  no  former  occasion,  in  any  Conference  in 
America,  was  so  much  said  in  defense  of  your  character  and  to  your  honor 
as  a  ministerial  servant  of  God  and  his  Church.  Your  worth,  your  labors, 
your  disinterested  services,  fatigues,  dangers,  and  difficulties  to  serve  your 
American  brethren  were  set  forth  pathetically,  and  urged  with  the  force  of 
reason  and  truth  in  an  argumentative  manner;  and  our  candid  and  impar- 
tial judgments  were  constrained  to  yield  to  the  conclusion  that  we  were 
bound  by  the  ties  of  moral  and  religious  obligations  to  treat  you  most  re- 
spectfully, and  to  retain  a  grateful  remembrance  of  all  your  labors  of  love 
toward  us.f 

Thus  amicably  ended,  as  the  event  proved,  relations  which 
dated  back  to  1784.  That  Bishop  Coke's  prudence  was  not 
equal  to  his  zeal,  and  that  he  more  than  once  needlessly 
strained  his  relations  with  the  American  Conference,  must 
be  allowed  by  all.  For  the  purposes  of  our  history,  these 
relations,  as  reviewed  in  detail  in  our  pages  for  a  quarter  of 
a  century  from  1784  to  1808,  may  be  summed  up  in  the  fol- 
lowing paragraphs: 

I.  During  the  whole  period  of  Bishop  Coke's  visits  to 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,.!.  75,  76.    \  See  Bangs,  Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.,  II.  196-226. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


321 


America,  from  1784  to  1804,  his  episcopal  character  was 
never  impeached,  nor  was  he  for  a  single  day  disquahfied 
for  the  performance  of  any  episcopal  duty:  he  presided  m 
every  general  assembly  of  the  preachers  from  the  Christmas 
Conference  of  1784  to  the  General  Conference  of  1804,  in- 
clusive ;  and  in  the  Annual  Conferences  where  he  was  pres- 
ent exercised  his  episcopal  functions  of  presidency  and  or- 
dination. 

2.  Bishop  Coke's  affairs  came  under  review  in  General 
Conferences  of  the  original  unlimited  and  supreme  order 
only,  working  under  no  constitution,  and  confessedly  com- 
petent to  the  entire  abolition  of  both  the  doctrines  and  the 
government  of  the  Church;  consequently,  had  such  a  Gen- 
eral Conference  deprived  Bishop  Coke,  even  temporarily,  of 
his  episcopal  character  or  functions,  when  he  was  present  on 
the  ground  to  exercise  them — which  no  Conference  ever  did 
— no  precedent  or  parallel  would  be  thereby  created  with  re- 
gard to  the  prerogatives  of  a  General  Conference  exercising 
delegated  and  constitutionally  Hmited  powers. 

3.  Bishop  Coke  was  never  more  than  a  visitor  to  America. 
His  relations  to  Ecumenical  Methodism  were  unique,  and 
have  had  no  parallel,  at  the  time,  before,  or  since.  Almost 
all,  if  not  all,  of  the  actions  of  General  Conferences  in  his  case 
were  taken  on  his  own  initiative,  and  concerning  questions 
which  he  himself  raised,  growing  out  of  his  relations  to  both 
Methodisms.  Most  of  these  questions  would  have  been  set- 
tled tacitly  and  by  common  consent  in  a  manner  to  meet  his 
approval,  as  many  of  them  were  by  express  action,  had  not 
the  Bishop's  imprudence  hurried  him  into  formal  demands 
at  inopportune  times,  when  his  relations  were  complicated 
with  other  questions  before  the  Conference,  such  as  the 
election  and  powers  of  new  bishops,  etc. 

4.  From  the  beginning  of  General  Conferences  in  1792, 
the  law  has  been  that  a  bishop  might  cease  from  traveling 
by  the  consent  of  the  General  Conference.  Coke's  circum- 
stances were  such  that  it  was  simply  impossible  for  him  to 
travel  at  large  as  Asbury  did.    His  service  could  not  be 

21 


322 


The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


continuous.  The  successive  permissions  given  to  him, 
therefore,  to  render  a  Hmited  service,  with  which  the  Con- 
ference and  the  Connection  would  be  content,  were  legally 
of  the  nature  of  "  consent  by  the  General  Conference"  for 
a  bishop  to  "  cease  from  traveling  at  large  among  the  peo- 
ple." *  The  action  is  thus  of  a  piece  with  that  which  takes 
place  at  nearly  every  General  Conference  when  our  aged 
and  worn  out  bishops  make  formal  application  for  permission 
to  cease  from  traveling.  The  law  has  never  made  sickness 
and  infirmity  the  sole  ground  upon  which  this  permission 
may  be  granted.  In  Coke's  case,  it  was  given  on  the 
ground  of  necessary  foreign  residence.  In  every  case,  the 
General  Conference  is  the  sole  judge  of  the  sufficiency  of 
the  ground. 

5.  Notwithstanding  the  frequent  imprudences  of  Bishop 
Coke,  and  the  uncertainties  which  attached  to  our  episco- 
pacy and  the  whole  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  until  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1808,  the 
successive  General  Conferences,  of  unlimited  powers,  treat- 
ed Bishop  Coke,  not  with  severity,  but  with  the  utmost  kind- 
ness and  consideration,  frequently  seeking  to  obtain  or  to  re- 
tain his  permanent  services,  which,  with  the  best  intentions, 
he  was  never  able  to  give.  Finally,  when  satisfied  after  re- 
peated experiment  that  such  continuous  service  could  not  be 
rendered  by  Bishop  Coke  in  America,  notwithstanding  his 
willing  engagements  to  that  end,  and  when  his  standing  was 
greatly  prejudiced  and  complicated  by  the  discovery  of  his 
ill-advised  and  most  unfortunate  negotiations  with  Dr.  White, 
the  General  Conference  respectfully  and  affectionately  con- 
sented to  Bishop  Coke's  foreign  residence  and  service,  add- 
ing an  official  proviso,  which  contemplated  the  contingency 
of  his  recall  to  episcopal  duty  and  station  in  America. 

With  regard  to  slavery,  on  motion  of  Roszel  and  Ware,  it 
was  determined  "  that  the  first  two  paragraphs  of  the  section 
on  slavery  be  retained  in  our  Discipline ;  and  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  authorize  each  Annual  Conference  to  form 


♦Discipline  of  1792. 


The  General  Conference  of  1808. 


323 


their  own  regulations  relative  to  buying  and  selling  slaves."  * 
This  action  was  taken  apparently  without  debate  or  division. 
Thus  all  that  related  to  slaveholding  among  private  members 
was  struck  out,  and  the  action  recorded  above  became  para- 
graph 3.  It  was  also  "  moved  from  the  chair,"  that  is,  by 
Bishop  Asbury,  "  that  there  be  one  thousand  forms  of  Disci- 
pline prepared  for  the  use  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference, 
in  which  the  section  and  rule  on  slavery  be  left  out,"  and 
this  motion,  too,  was  carried,  as  it  seems,  unanimously  and 
without  debate. t  Dictated  by  the  experience  and  prudence 
of  Bishop  Asbury,  though  this  measure  was. 

Here  were  two  codes  of  Discipline,  put  forth  as  law  by  the  same  ecclesi- 
astical legislature,  and  intended  to  operate  for  the  promotion  of  unity  and 
uniformity  among  the  same  people!  ...  In  1808  the  Discipline  itself 
was  expurgated  [of  both  the  "  general  rule  "  and  the  section  of  statutory 
law];  and,  by  special  enactment,  exempted  from  convej'ing  the  laws  of  the 
Church  to  a  select  circle  of  its  members.  Doubtless  there  was  benevolence 
intended  by  this  measure;  but  it  presents  such  an  anomaly  in  legislation,  as 
tempts  us  to  blush  at  every  aspect  in  which  it  presents  the  legislative  acumen 
of  our  fathers.  Was  it  from  this  feeling,  or  from  unwillingness  to  circulate 
this  great  disparaging  fact  of  their  pro-slavery  affinities  after  all,  that  Dr. 
Bangs  omits  all  reference  to  the  subject  in  his  account  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1808.' J 

This  dangerous  and  unjustifiable  act  of  1808  was  one  of 
the  entering  wedges  that  ultimately  split  the  Church  in  twain. 
Thursday  afternoon,  May  26,  1808,  adjournment  without  a 
day  was  reached:  thus  ended  the  Fifth  and  last  unlimited 
and  supreme  Quadrennial  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church. 

The  term  "  Delegated  "  is  chosen  to  mark  the  altered  and 
distinct  character  of  all  subsequent  General  Conferences. 
This  word  indicates,  not  only  that  the  members  of  these 
later  bodies  are  elected  representatives,  or  delegates,  but 
that  the  Conference  itself  exercises  delegated  powers.  It  is 
an  agent,  not  a  principal.  It  is  a  dependent  body,  with  de- 
rived powers.  These  powers  are  defined  in  a  Constitution 
issuing  from  the  body  that  ordained  the  Delegated  Confer- 


Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  93.  \  Ihid.^  I.  93. 

X  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee's  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  444,  445. 


324  The  Quadrennial  General  Conferences. 


ence.  Historically  the  fountain  of  authority  in  Episcopal 
Methodism  is  the  body  of  traveling  elders.  They  created 
the  existing  General  Conference,  ordained  its  Constitution, 
and  finally  admitted  laymen  to  their  seats  in  the  body.  That 
body  of  traveUng  elders  saw  fit  to  place  (i)  the  doctrines, 
(2)  the  General  Rules,  (3)  the  Episcopacy,  or  itinerant  gen- 
eral superintendency,  according  to  the  "plan"  then  existing 
in  the  Church,  (4)  the  rights  of  ministers  and  members  to 
formal  trial  and  appeal,  (5)  the  produce  of  funds  and  plants 
originating  with  and  sustained  b}^  the  traveling  preachers, 
and  (6)  the  ratio  of  representation  in  the  delegated  body, 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  new  General  Conference.  Of  these 
six  restrictive  rules,  one  only  protects  an  integral  part  of  the 
government  of  the  Church — the  Episcopacy — which  the 
Church  had  tested  for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  from  modifi- 
cation by  the  Delegated  Conference.  This  branch  of  the 
government  is  best  described  as  "  executive,"  since  here  is 
lodged  the  duty  of  administering  the  "  rules  and  regulations" 
enacted  by  the  General  Conference  in  the  exercise  of  its 
constitutional  powers.  If  sometimes  it  is  said  that  the  Epis- 
copacy and  the  General  Conference  are  coordinate  depart- 
ments of  our  government,  it  is  not  meant  to  raise  the  ques- 
tion of  their  relative  importance,  or  even  to  stress  the  analo- 
gies of  civil  government,  but  only  to  express  the  fact  that 
the  Episcopacy  holds  a  charter  from  the  same  body  of  eld- 
ers that  created  the  present  General  Conference.  By  law 
existing  then  and  ever  since,  the  Episcopacy  is  responsible  to 
the  General  Conference  for  the  execution  of  all  statutes  en- 
acted according  to  its  constitutionally  delegated  powers. 
Should  a  difference  of  view  arise  as  to  the  construction  of 
these  powers,  the  appeal  would  lie  in  equity  to  the  body  of 
elders  from  whom  the  Episcopacy  holds  its  charter  and  the 
General  Conference  its  constitution.  How  this  problem  has 
been  wrought  out  in  the  later  history  of  the  Church  our  next 
Book  will  show. 


BOOK  VI. 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences  of  the 
Undivided  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

I,  The  First  and  Second  Delegated  General  Con- 
ferences, 1812  and  1816. 
n.  The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  and 
Mr.  Soule's  First  Election  to  the  Episcopacy, 
1820. 

III.  The   Quadrennium,   1820-1824:    the  Contrasted 

Governments  of  the  Two  Episcopal  Methodisms. 

IV.  The  Fourth  and  Fifth  Delegated  General  Con- 

ferences, AND  THE  Intervening  Quadrennium, 
1824-1828. 

V.  The  Sixth  and  Seventh  Delegated  General  Con- 
ferences, 1832  and  1836:  Conclusion. 

VI.  The  Eighth  Delegated   General  Conference, 

1840. 

VII.  The  General  Conference  of  1844:  the  Louisville 

Convention  and  the  Organization  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


THE  FIRST  AND  SECOND  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFER- 
ENCES, l8l2  AND  1816. 

THE  First  Delegated  General  Conference  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  met,  according  to  appointment, 
in  John  Street  Church,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  May  i, 
1812,  and  adjourned  May  22.  It  was  composed  of  ninety 
delegates  from  eight  Conferences,  of  whom  the  Philadelphia 
and  Baltimore  Conferences  had  less  than  one  third.  The 
Genesee  Conference  had  been  created  by  the  two  Bishops 
in  1809,  without  warrant  from  the  General  Conference  of 
1808;  though  in  1796  it  had  been  provided,  "  that  the  Bish- 
ops shall  have  authority  to  appoint  other  Yearly  Conferences 
in  the  interval  of  the  General  Conference."  This  grant  of 
power,  however,  appears  never  to  have  been  inserted  in  the 
Discipline;  and  a  great  outcry  was  raised  against  this  exer- 
cise of  episcopal  authority,  but  Bishop  Asbury  declares  it 
"was  one  of  the  most  judicious  acts  of  our  Episcopacy." 
The  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  this  proceeding  of 
the  Bishops  was  expressly  raised  in  the  Virginia  Confer- 
ence, however,  and  Bishop  Asbury  passed  the  matter 
around  to  all  the  Annual  Conferences  for  decision,  and  the 
course  of  the  Bishops  was  approved.  The  General  Confer- 
ence of  1812  also  passed  a  resolution,  "  that  the  Genesee 
Annual  Conference  is  a  legally  constituted  and  organized 
Conference;"  but  it  was  the  last  time  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence was  organized  in  this  way. 

Alternate  or  reserve  delegates  had  been  elected  by  the 
New  England  Conference,  and  these  were  recognized  and 
seated  in  the  place  of  absent  principals :  this  precedent  has 
been  received  as,  sufficient  legal  warrant  for  the  continuance 
of  the  practice  in  both  Episcopal  Methodisms  to  this  day. 

(327) 


328 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


This  was  the  first  Conference  under  the  Constitution; 
but,  just  as  the  government  of  1784  was  first  tested  in  1787, 
so  the  Constitution  of  1808  received  its  first  strain  in  1820, 
when  the  election  of  presiding  elders  was  carried  affirma- 
tively. Jesse  Lee  was  defeated  in  an  effort  to  have  the  del- 
egates to  the  General  Conference  appointed  by  seniority, 
and  to  change  the  ratio  of  representation  from  five  to  six. 
Local  deacons  were  admitted  to  elders'  orders,  provided 
"  no  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office,"  etc.  The 
election  of  presiding  elders,  after  animated  and  protracted 
debate,  and  an  amendment  that  the  bishops  should  continue 
to  nominate  until  an  election  was  effected,  was  defeated  in 
both  the  amended  and  the  original  forms. 

Bishop  McKendree  presented  the  first  formal,  episcopal 
address  to  the  Conference,  a  precedent  which  the  bishops 
have  ever  since  uniformly  followed.  Among  other  things, 
he  said  that  the  extent  of  the  work  might  "  make  it  proper 
for  you  to  inquire  if  the  work  is  sufficiently  under  the  over- 
sight of  the  Superintendency,  and  to  make  such  arrange- 
ments and  provisions  as  your  wisdom  may  approve;"  but 
the  Conference  decUned  "  to  strengthen  the  episcopacy  "  at 
this  time.  He  invited' inspection  of  his  episcopal  adminis- 
tration by  the  Conference ;  saying, 

I  consider  myself  justly  accountable,  not  for  the  system  of  government, 
but  for  my  administration,  and  ought  therefore  to  be  ready  to  answer  in 
General  Conference  for  my  past  conduct,  and  be  willing  to  receive  informa- 
tion and  advice  to  perfect  future  operations.  I  wish  this  body  to  exercise 
their  rights  in  these  respects* 

This  address  had  been  submitted  privately  to  a  "  commit- 
tee of  the  most  respectable  and  influential  members  "  of  the 
Conference,  from  which  some  of  Bishop  McKendree's  con- 
fidential friends  were  designedly  omitted,  and  "  men  of  tal- 
ents of  different  sentiments  as  to  the  polity  of  the  Church  " 
selected.  Moreover,  an  amendment  suggested  by  these 
brethren  had  been  adopted, t  but  when  the  address  was 
read  in  Conference, 

♦See  the  whole  address  in  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  265-270. 
■\Ibid.,  McKendree's  memorandum,  pp.  370,  271. 


The  First  and  Second,  1812  and  1816. 


329 


As  it  was  a  new  thing,  the  aged  Bishop  (Asbury)  rose  to  his  feet  immedi- 
ately after  the  paper  was  read,  and  addressed  the  junior  Bishop  to  the  fol- 
lowing effect:  "I  have  something  to  say  to  you  before  the  Conference." 
The  junior  also  rose  to  his  feet,  and  they  stood  face  to  face.  Bishop 
Asbury  went  on  to  say,  "  This  is  a  new  thing.  I  never  did  business  in  this 
way,  and  why  is  this  new  thing  introduced.-'  "  The  junior  Bishop  promptly 
replied,  "  You  are  our  father,  we  are  your  sons ;  you  never  have  had  need  of 
it.  I  am  only  a  brother,  and  have  need  of  it."  Bishop  Asbury  said  no  more, 
but  sat  down  with  a  smile  on  his  face.* 

With  reference  to  the  addresses  of  Bishops  before  the 
Conference,  we  find  several  entries  in  the  Journal.  Friday, 
May  8:  "After  calling  the  list,  Bishop  Asbury  addressed 
himself  to  Bishop  McKendree,  or  to  the  Conference 
through  him,  in  a  kind  of  historical  account  of  the  work  in 
past  years,  the  present  state,  and  what  probably  may  be  the 
future  state  of  the  work  on  the  continent.  Bishop  McKen- 
dree rose  and  replied,  expressive  of  his  approbation."  Sat- 
urday, May  9:  "After  calling  the  list,  Bishop  Asbury  rose 
and  addressed  himself  to  Bishop  McKendree  on  the  subject 
of  defining  the  bounds  of  the  Annual  Conferences."  Fri- 
day, May  15:  "After  calling  the  list.  Bishop  Asbury  rose 
and  requested  leave  of  the  Conference  to  address  Bishop 
McKendree  in  the  presence  of  the  Conference.  Leave  was 
granted.  Bishop  Asbury  then  proceeded  to  address  him- 
self to  Bishop  McKendree  and  the  Conference  conjointly. 
Bishop  McKendree  then  rose  and  addressed  himself  to 
Bishop  Asbury  and  the  Conference."  f  In  each  case. 
Bishop  McKendree  appears  to  have  been  in  the  chair.  To 
this  extent — once  by  formal  leave,  asked  and  granted — a 
bishop  who  was  not  presiding  participated  in  the  business  of 
the  Conference.  There  is  no  record  of  either  bishop's  of- 
fering a  motion  or  resolution,  or  taking  part  in  debate. 
The  Constitution  of  the  Delegated  General  Conference  did 
not  formally  exclude  the  bishops  from  the  privileges  they 
had  hitherto  exercised  in  the  Conference ;  but  when  the 
body  became  delegated,  representative,  elective,  and  acted 

*Rev.  Henry  Smith's  letter  to  Bishop  Paine,  Feb.  6,  1855:  Smith  was  a 
member  and  present. 

I  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  104,  106,  no. 


330  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


under  a  Constitution,  the  bishops  ceased  to  claim  the  rights 
of  the  floor.  But  the  bishops  seem  occasionally  to  have  given 
the  casting  vote  in  a  tie  until  1840,  when  Bishop  Hedding  from 
the  chair  expressly  decHned  to  do  so.*  At  this  Conference, 
however,  Bishops  Soule  and  Morris  introduced  resolutions. 

In  addition  to  Bishop  McKendree's  written  address,  Bish- 
op Asbury  made  a  verbal  communication ;  and  so  much  of 
it  as  related  to  "  his  thoughts  of  going  to  Europe  on  a  visit " 
and  to  "  regulations,  providing  for  the  locating,  or  supernu- 
merary, or  superannuated  relation  of  a  bishop,"  was,  with 
similar  portions  of  Bishop  McKendree's  address  referred  to 
the  committee  on  episcopacy,  consisting  of  eight  members, 
one  from  each  Annual  Conference,  who  had  been  previous- 
ly elected.  Other  standing  committees,  such  as  those  on 
revisal,  boundaries,  and  book  concern,  were  raised  at  this 
General  Conference,  and  have  ever  since  been  a  part  of  the 
working  machinery  of  the  body.  The  committee  on  bound- 
aries reported  in  favor  of  dividing  the  Western  Conference 
into  the  Ohio  and  Tennessee,  which  was  concurred  in,  and 
in  favor  of  a  Mississippi  Conference,  which  the  bishops  were 
authorized  to  form  during  the  quadrennium  if  necessary. 

The  committee  on  episcopacy  reported  on  Bishop  As- 
bury's  suggestions  as  follows: 

1.  That  it  is  our  sincere  request  and  desire  that  Bishop  Asbury  would  re- 
linquish his  thoughts  of  visiting  Europe,  and  confine  his  labors  to  the 
American  connection  so  long  as  God  preserves  him  a  blessing  to  the  Church. 

2.  As  it  respects  the  instituting  of  a  rule  to  fix  the  relation  of  our  bishops 
other  than  that  in  which  they  now  stand  to  the  Church  of  God,  we  do  not 
see  our  way  clear  to  recommend  such  a  measure:  this  much  we  would  ob- 
serve, that  we  conceive  it  to  be  a  case  in  which  our  bishops  should  exercise 
their  own  discretion,  and,  should  circumstances  make  it  necessary  for  them 
to  curtail  their  labors,  it  will  be  for  the  succeeding  General  Conference  to 
approve  of  the  same.| 

This  action  was  reported  and  adopted  May  9.  Previously 
the  committee  had  requested  the  opinion  of  the  bishops  as 
to  the  propriety  of  electing  another  bishop,  and,  as  Bishop 
Asbury  had  been  invited  to  England  by  the  British  Confer- 
ence, the  episcopal  committee  wished  to  know  if  he  contem- 


*  Clark's  Life  of  Hedding,  pp.  556-558.    -j"  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  115. 


The  First  and  Second,  1812  and  1816. 


331 


plated  the  visit.  It  seems  that  action  similar  to  that  which 
had  been  taken  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Coke  had  been  regard- 
ed as  necessary  or  desirable.  This  appears  from  the  first 
item  of  the  committee's  report,  cited  above,  and  also  from 
Bishop  Asbury's  reply  to  the  inquiries  of  the  committee, 
dated  New  York,  May  9,  181 2: 

My  Dear  Brethren:  Whatever  I  may  have  thought  or  spoken  in  former 
times  upon  strengthening  the  Episcopacy,  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  say  to  you 
at  this  time,  Do  this,  or  that.  I  am  bound  in  duty  to  serve  the  Connection 
with  all  my  power  of  body  and  mind,  as  long  and  as  largely  as  I  can;  and, 
while  1  am  persuaded  that  my  services  are  needed  and  acceptable,  to  give 
up  all  thoughts  of  visits  out  of  the  American  Continent.  I  feel  myself  in- 
dispensably bound  to  the  Conference  and  my  colleague,  never  to  leave  them 
nor  forsake  them  upon  the  above  conditions.  F.  Asbury.* 

When  McKendree  first  entered  on  his  episcopal  duties, 
Asbury  proposed  that  they  should  both  attend  in  company 
all  the  Annual  Conferences,  as  Asbury  and  Coke  had  done 
when  the  latter  was  in  the  country,  and  as  Asbury  and 
Whatcoat  had  continued  to  do,  as  long  as  Bishop  Whatcoat 
lived.  The  junior  bishop  readily  acceded  to  this  proposal 
of  his  senior  colleague,  and  such  was  their  custom  until  the 
death  of  Asbury  in  1816.  Of  their  first  episcopal  tour,  As- 
bury says,  "  We  are  riding  in  a  poor  thirty-dollar  chaise,  in 
partnership,  two  Bishops  of  us;  but  it  must  be  confessed 
that  it  tallies  well  with  our  purses."  They  often,  however, 
pursued  different  routes  from  the  seat  of  one  Annual  Confer- 
ence to  that  of  the  next,  that  they  might  preach  and  more 
extensively  oversee  the  work.  In  18 11  Bishop  Asbury  at- 
tended all  the  Conferences,  and  found  time  to  visit  Canada. 
At  first  both  the  bishops  shared  in  the  public  presidency  of 
the  Conferences,  but  gradually,  as  the  senior  became  con- 
vinced of  the  exceptional  abilities  of  the  junior  bishop,  and 
his  own  infirmities  increased,  he  rehnquished  to  him  the 
presidential  chair,  and  confined  himself  to  the  duty  of  sta- 
tioning the  preachers  and  assisting  in  the  ordinations.  The 
last  Conference  Asbury  attended  was  the  Tennessee,  at 


*  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  275.  The  original  was  in  Bishop  Paine's  posses* 
sion,  endorsed  by  Roszel,  a  member  oi  the  coinmittee. 


332 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


Bethlehem,  Wilson  county,  Oct.  20,  1815.  Here  he  says, 
"  My  eyes  fail:  I  will  resign  the  stations  to  Bishop  McKen- 
dree."  Both  the  bishops  were  unalterably  opposed  to  the 
plan  of  an  elective  presiding  eldership ;  Asbury  always  re- 
fused their  aid  in  stationing  the  preachers.  He  was  perfectly 
familiar  with  the  preachers  and  the  work  and  preferred  to 
make  the  appointments  solely  on  his  own  judgment  and  re- 
sponsibility. This  plan  of  Asbury's,  McKendree  refused  to 
adopt,  and  to  him  we  owe  the  "  cabinet"  of  presiding  elders, 
who  regularly  assist  the  bishops  in  making  the  appointments. 
As  is  well  known,  there  is  no  provision  for  such  a  meeting 
in  the  Discipline:  it  has  simply  become  universal  usage,  and 
its  introduction  we  owe  to  Bishop  McKendree.  When 
urged  by  Bishop  Asbury  to  adopt  his  plan  of  stationing  the 
preachers  without  consulting  the  elders,  Bishop  McKendree 
addressed  to  him  the  following  letter,  which,  as  a  kind  of 
Magna  Charta  of  the  cabinet  meeting,  is  here  cited. 

Cincinnati,  Oct.  8,  i8ii. 
Brother  Asbury:  I  am  fully  convinced  of  the  utility  and  necessity  of  the 
council  of  the  Presiding  Elders  in  stationing  the  preachers,  but  you  fear 
individuals  will  make  it  difficult,  if  not  impracticable,  for  you  to  proceed  on 
this  plan.  I  am  willing  to  assist  you  in  the  best  way  I  can;  and,  as  I  am  in 
duty  bound,  so  I  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  render  the  most  effectual  service 
to  the  Church.  Consequently,  I  am  still  willing  to  accede  to  the  proposition 
which  you  made  at  the  Genesee  Conference,  if  it  may  be  qualified.  If  it  is 
still  your  wish,  I  will  take  the  plan  of  stations,  after  you  have  matured  it — 
call  the  Elders  to  my  assistance,  and,  after  deliberate  council,  report  in  favor, 
or  dictate  such  alterations  as  may  be  thought  necessary.  But  I  still  refuse  to 
take  the  whole  responsibility  upon  myself,  not  that  I  am  afraid  of  proper 
accountability,  but  because  I  conceive  the  proposition  included  one  highly 
improper. 

Yours,  in  the  bonds  of  a  yoke-fellow,  W.  McKendree.* 

The  Second  Delegated  General  Conference  assembled  in 
Baltimore,  May  i,  1816,  and  adjourned  May  24.  A  valedic- 
tory address  of  the  deceased  Asbury  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence was  read.  Bishop  McKendree's  episcopal  message 
was  presented  by  Thomas  L.  Douglass.  Both  addresses 
were  referred  to  a  committee  to  distribute  the  distinct  topics 
contained  in  them  to  appropriate  committees.    As  a  result 

*Paine's  McKendree,  I.  260,  261. 


The  First  and  Second,  1812  and  18 16. 


333 


six  standing  committees  were  ordered:  on  Episcopacy;  on 
the  Book  Concern;  on  Ways  and  Means;  on  Review  and 
Revision;  on  Safety;  and  on  Temporal  Economy. 

Tuesday,  May  7,  Samuel  Merwin  moved  that  in  answer 
to  the  question,  "  How  shall  the  presiding  elders  be  chosen 
and  appointed?"  the  DiscipHne  should  read,  "At  an  early 
period  in  each  Annual  Conference  the  bishop  shall  nominate 
a  person  for  each  district  that  is  to  be  suppHed,  and  the  Con- 
ference shall,  without  debate,  proceed  in  the  choice,  the 
person  nominated  being  absent;  and  if  the  person  nominated 
be  not  chosen  according  to  nomination,  the  bishop  shall 
nominate  two  others,  one  of  whom  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
Conference  to  choose ;  "  and  in  answer  to  the  question,  "  By 
whom  shall  the  preachers  be  appointed  to  their  stations?  " 
Merwin  moved,  "By  the  bishop  with  the  advice  and  counsel 
of  the  presiding  elders."  *  The  motion  was  ordered  to  lie 
on  the  table.  Wednesday  afternoon  the  subject  was  taken 
up,  and  the  Conference  resolved  itself  into  a  committee  of 
the  whole.  Bishop  McKendree  called  Garrettson  to  the 
chair  and  retired.  The  committee  rose,  reported  progress, 
asked  leave  to  sit  again,  and  the  Bishop  resumed  the  chair. 
Thursday  afternoon  the  committee  of  the  whole  sat  again  on 
the  same  business.  Bishop  McKendree  calling  Philip  Bruce 
to  the  chair.  Friday  the  same  process  was  gone  through 
with  once  more,  George  Pickering  being  in  the  chair.  Sat- 
urday morning,  in  committee  of  the  whole,  with  Philip  Bruce 
in  the  chair,  Nathan  Bangs  offered  the  following  amend- 
ment, which  was  accepted  by  the  original  mover: 

The  bishop,  at  an  early  period  of  the  Annual  Conference,  shall  nominate 
an  elder  for  each  district,  and  the  Conference  shall,  without  debate,  either 
confirm  or  reject  such  nomination.  If  the  person  or  persons  so  nominated 
be  not  elected  by  the  Conference,  the  bishop  shall  nominate  two  others  for 
each  of  the  vacant  districts,  one  of  whom  shall  be  chosen.  And  the  presiding 
elder  so  elected  and  appointed  shall  remain  in  office  four  years,  unless  dis- 
missed by  the  mutual  consent  of  the  Bishop  and  Conference,  or  elected  to 
some  other  office  by  the  General  Conference.  But  no  presiding  elder  shall 
be  removed  from  office  during  the  term  of  four  years  without  his  consent, 
unless  the  reasons  for  such  removal  be  stated  to  him  in  presence  of  the  Con- 
ference, which  shall  decide,  without  debate,  on  his  case.f 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  135.    \  Ibid.,  I.  140. 


334  '^^'■^  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


"After  considerable  debate  the  committee  rose,  reported 
progress,  and  begged  leave  to  sit  again.  Bishop  McKendree 
resumed  the  chair."  Saturday  afternoon,  the  vote  on  the 
measure  was  taken  in  committee  of  the  whole,  "  and  it  was 
lost,  42  in  favor  and  60  against  it."  Philip  Bruce,  chairman, 
so  reported  to  the  Conference.  Monday  morning,  May  13, 
the  vote  was  "  taken  on  the  first  part  of  the  main  question — 
38  in  favor  of  the  motion  and  63  against  it."  In  the  afternoon, 
the  vote  was  "  taken  on  the  second  part  of  the  motion  and  it 
was  lost."  *  Thus  after  being  before  the  Conference  for  a 
week,  and  having  been  thoroughly  analyzed  and  debated,  the 
measure  was  defeated  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  At  a 
later  date,  a  resolution,  "  that  the  motion  relative  to  the  elec- 
tion and  appointment  of  presiding  elders  is  not  contrary  to 
the  constitution  of  our  Church,"  was  lost.f 

The  Committee  on  Episcopacy  formally  approved  the 
administration  of  the  bishops,  and  recommended  the  election 
of  two  additional  bishops.  Enoch  George  obtained  57  out  of 
106  votes  on  the  first  ballot,  and  Robert  Richford  Roberts, 
55  on  the  second.  After  their  election,  but  before  their  ordi- 
nation, McKendree  several  times  retired  and  called  William 
Phoebus  to  the  chair.  Friday,  May  17,  was  appointed  for  the 
ordinations,  and  Saturday  morning  Bishop  Roberts  occupied 
the  chair,  as  he  did  frequently  during  the  remainder  of  the 
session.  From  the  Journal,  which  is  signed  by  McKendree 
only,  it  appears  that  Bishop  George  was  not  in  the  chair  dur- 
ing the  session.  "  His  feeling  of  self-distrust  was  such  as  to 
make  the  duties  of  public  intercourse,  which  his  office  drew 
upon  him,  embarrassing  and  painful.  For  constitutional 
questions  he  had-  no  taste."  % 

The  select  committee  on  slavery  reported,  "that  the  evil 
appears  to  be  past  remedy,"  and  that  "  they  are  constrained 
to  admit  that  to  bring  about  such  a  change  in  the  civil  code 
as  would  favor  the  cause  of  liberty  is  not  in  the  power  of  the 
General  Conference."    They  find  that  some  of  the  Annual 


*  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  135-141.  t  I^id-i  P-  164. 

JMcTyeire,  Hist,  of  Meth.,  p.  537. 


The  First  and  Second,  1812  and  1816. 


335 


Conferences  have  made  no  efficient  rules  on  the  subject,  and 
recommend 

That  all  the  recommendatory  part  of  the  second  division,  ninth  section,  and 
first  answer  of  our  form  of  Discipline,  after  the  word  "  slavery  "  be  stricken 
out,  and  the  following  words  inserted:  "  Therefore  no  slaveholder  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  hereafter  where  the  laws  of  the 
state  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liberated 
slave  to  enjoy  freedom." 

The  report  was  adopted.* 

It  was  made  "  the  duty  of  the  bishops,  or  of  a  committee 
which  they  may  appoint  at  each  Annual  Conference,  to 
point  out  a  course  of  reading  and  study  to  be  pursued  by  can- 
didates for  the  ministry,"  and  ordered  that  "  before  any  such 
candidate  is  received  into  full  connection  he  shall  give  sat- 
isfactory evidence  of  his  knowledge  of  those  particular  sub- 
jects." This  is  the  first  legislation  of  the  kind  in  the  history 
of  the  Church. 

As  appears  from  the  Journal  of  Bishop  McKendree,  at  the 
close  of  the  General  Conference  of  1816,  the  three  bishops 
divided  the  work  among  themselves,  "  mutually  agreeing  to 
attend  the  Conferences  alternately,  thus  changing  their  work 
every  year;  and  for  the  Bishop,  whose  turn  it  might  be  to 
attend  a  Conference,  to  be  the  responsible  president  of  it; 
and  the  other  Bishops,  if  present,  to  be  his  counselors." 

"  Thus,"  remarks  Bishop  Paine,  "  was  begun  the  practice 
of  dividing  the  work  of  superintending  the  Conferences  by 
the  Bishops  themselves,  and  also  of  alternating."  f  It  was, 
however,  proposed  by  the  senior  bishop,  that  they  should  all 
attend  the  first  three  Conferences  in  company,  ' '  to  adjust  their 
views  and  mode  of  presiding,  so  that  they  might  adminis- 
ter harmoniously  when  separated,"  as  neither  of  the  juniors 
"was  acquainted  with  the  general  state  of  the  Church,  nor 
with  the  peculiarities  and  difficulties  of  the  episcopal  duties." 
To  this  proposal  Bishop  Roberts  acceded,  but  Bishop 
George  could  not  see  it  "  necessary  for  three  men  to  go  and 
do  one  man's  work."  Accordingly  McKendree  and  Rob- 
erts set  out  together,  and  all  three  of  the  bishops  met  at  the 

*  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  169,  170.    f  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  361,  362. 


336 


The  Delegated  Getieral  Conferences. 


session  of  the  Ohio  Conference,  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  Sept.  3. 
"  From  that  point  they  were  to  commence  their  general  plan 
of  operation.  According  to  this  arrangement,  there  was  an 
ideal  division  of  the  work  into  three  parts — the  senior  Bish- 
op taking  the  first.  Bishop  George  the  second,  and  Bishop 
Roberts  the  third.  Each  was  bound  to  attend  his  allotted 
part;  not,  however,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  two,  who 
were  at  liberty  to  attend  officially."  * 

In  addition  to  the  address  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1816,  Bishop  Asbury  left,  "A  Valedictory  Address  to  Wil- 
liam McKendree,  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church."  The  paper  is  dated  Lancaster  Co.,  Penn.,  Aug. 
5,  1813,  and  fills  thirty-five  pages  of  Bishop  Paine's  Life  of 
McKendree.  Only  a  sentiment  or  two  from  it  can  be  given 
here: 

Guard  particularly  against  two  orders  of  preachers — the  one  for  the 
country,  the  other  for  the  cities.  .  .  .  You  know,  my  brother,  that  the 
present  ministerial  cant  is,  that  we  cannot  now,  as  in  former  apostolical 
days,  have  such  doctrines,  such  discipline,  such  convictions,  such  conver- 
sions, such  witnesses  of  sanctification,  and  such  holy  men.  But  I  say  that 
we  can;  I  say  we  must;  yea,  I  say  we  have.  .  .  .  Should  we  go  to  Pres- 
byterians to  be  ordained  Episcopal  Methodists.'  or  to  Episcopalians,  who  at 
that  time  had  no  Bishop,  or  power  of  ordination  in  the  United  States.'  .  .  . 
Here  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  Methodist  was  the  first  Church  organized  aft- 
er the  establishment  of  peace  in  1783,  and  that  the  Protestant  Episcopalians 
were  not  organized  as  a  Church  until  after  there  was  a  law  passed  by  the 
British  Parliament.  .  .  .  And  suppose  this  excellent  [Methodist]  consti- 
tution and  order  of  things  should  be  broken,  what  shall  the  present  or  future 
Bishops  do.'  Let  them  do  as  your  noble  countryman  [George  Washington] 
did — resign  and  retire  into  private  life.  It  is  a  serious  thing  for  a  Bishop  to 
be  stripped  of  any  constitutional  rights  chartered  to  him  at  his  ordination, 
without  which  he  could  not,  and  would  not,  have  entered  into  that  sacred 
office — he  being  conscious  at  the  same  time  he  had  never  violated  those  sa- 
cred rights.  .  .  .  Thus  I  have  traced  regular  order  and  succession  in 
John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury,  Richard  Whatcoat,  and  Wil- 
liam McKendree.  Let  any  other  Church  trace  its  succession  as  direct  and 
as  pure  if  they  can.  .  .  .  Should  there  be  at  any  time  failure  in  any  de- 
partment, such  as  you  cannot  cure  nor  restore,  appeal  to  the  General  Con- 
ference. .  .  .  Never  be  afraid  to  trust  young  men.  .  .  .  It  is  my 
confirmed  opinion  that  the  apostles  acted  both  as  bishops  and  traveling  su- 
perintendents in  planting  and  watering,  ruling  and  ordering  the  whole  Con- 
nection;  and  that  they  did  not  ordain  any  local  bishops,  but  that  they  or- 


■>  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  361-363. 


The  First  and  Second,  1812  and  18 16. 


337 


dained  local  deacons  and  elders.  .  .  .  Mark!  it  was  in  the  second  visit 
that  Paul  and  Barnabas  established  order:  and  why  was  Timothy  or  Titus 
sent  if  elders  could  ordain  elders?  And  why  had  the  apostle  to  go  or  send, 
if  it  was  not  held  as  the  divine  right  of  the  apostles  to  ordain?  .  .  .  You 
know  that  for  four  years  past  I  have,  with  pleasure,  resigned  to  you  the 
presidency  of  the  nine  Annual  Conferences.  .  .  .  Our  government  be- 
ing spiritual,  one  election  to  office  is  sufficient  during  life,  unless  in  cases  of 
debility,  a  voluntary  resignation  of  the  office,  corruption  in  principle,  or  im- 
morality in  practice.  .  .  .  My  dear  Bishop!  it  is  the  traveling  apostolic 
order  and  ministry  that  is  found  in  our  very  constitution.* 

Such  were  the  mature  opinions  and  the  parting  counsels 
of  the  Apostle  of  American  Methodism,  expressed  to  his  col- 
league in  the  episcopacy.  We  are  not  concerned  to  estab- 
lish the  correctness  of  the  opinions,  or,  in  every  case,  the 
wisdom  of  the  counsels ;  but  it  is  the  province  of  history  to 
ascertain  what,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  were  the  tenets  cherished 
by  a  man  like  Asbury,  and,  particularly,  his  life-long  views 
with  regard  to  Methodist  government  and  its  Episcopacy. 
He  was  not  a  Presbyterian:  on  the  contrary,  he  was  a 
staunch  Episcopalian,  of  the  once  common  moderate  type, 
to  the  last.  In  this  he  was  the  representative  of  many.  The 
modern  writers  who  would  reduce  our  ministry  to  a  "  pres- 
byterial  parity,"  and  ascribe  their  doctrine  to  the  founders 
of  our  Church,  do  the  fathers  and  themselves  a  gross  injus- 
tice, when  they  hang  their  arguments  on  the  chance  employ- 
ment of  a  word.  The  early  literature  of  American  Metho- 
dism is  filled  with  express  statements  and  arguments,  as  well 
as  passing  references,  which  decisively  prove  the  contrary. 


*Paine's  Life  and  Times  of  William  McKendree,  I.  310-345. 

22 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  THIRD  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE,  AND  MR. 
SOULE's  FIRST  ELECTION  TO  THE  EPISCOPACY,  182O. 

THE  Conference  met  in  Baltimore,  May  i,  1820,  and  was 
composed  of  eighty-nine  delegates,  from  eleven  Confer- 
ences. Bishop  McKendree  presented,  as  usual,  a  written 
address,  cited  in  full  by  Bishop  Paine,*  and  Bishops  George 
and  Roberts  made  verbal  communications,  all  of  which  were 
referred  to  appropriate  committees.  The  Missionary  Soci- 
ety was  organized ;  the  educational  interests  of  the  Church 
set  forward ;  District  Conferences  for  local  preachers  creat- 
ed; slavery  legislation  resumed;  the  Canada  question  con- 
sidered; and  the  election  of  presiding  elders  agitated  amid 
much  excitement  which  did  not  soon  abate. 

Saturday  morning,  May  13,  after  prayer  by  Freeborn 
Garrettson,  Joshua  Soule  was  elected  the  seventh  bishop  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  receiving  47  out  of  88 
votes  on  the  first  ballot.  Nathan  Bangs,  who  favored  at 
that  time  the  election  of  presiding  elders,  received  38  votes. 

Three  days  later,  "  the  resolution  that  had  been  laid  on  the 
table  relating  to  the  choice  of  presiding  elders  "  was  called 
up.  The  Journal  is  evidently  defective,  for  this  is  the  first 
mention  of  the  subject  in  the  official  record.  From  a  mem- 
orandum of  WilHam  Capers,  (a  member  of  the  Conference 
and  of  the  committee  which  reported  the  "  suspended  "  res- 
olutions,) prepared  at  the  time  for  the  information  of  Bish- 
op McKendree,  who  had  retired  into  the  country,  we  learn 
that  Messrs.  Merritt  and  Waugh  had  previously  introduced 
the  motion  for  the  election  of  presiding  elders.  Their  reso- 
lution, as  the  Journal  shows,  was  debated,  when  called  up. 


*Life  of  McKendree,  I.  397-404. 

(338) 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  339 


almost  continuously  for  two  days,  when  Cooper  and  Emory 
offered  their  substitute,  '*  that  the  Bishops  should  nominate 
three  times  the  number  of  presiding  elders  wanted,"  out  of 
which  the  Conference  should  elect  by  ballot  without  de- 
bate.* Emory  and  Capers,  who  were  on  opposite  sides  of 
the  question  at  issue,  agree  that  Bishop  George  was  the  real 
author  of  this  measure,  as  well  as  of  the  proposal  for  a  com- 
mittee of  conciliation,  brought  in  later  by  Messrs.  Bangs 
and  Capers. t  This  committee,  appointed  by  Bishop 
George,  consisted  of  Cooper,  Emory,  and  Bangs,  who  fa- 
vored the  proposed  change,  and  of  Roszel,  Wells,  and  Ca- 
pers, who  approved  the  existing  plan.  Their  duty  was  to 
confer  with  the  Bishops,  and  thus  mature  a  report  which 
should  "  conciliate  the  wishes  of  the  brethren  upon  this  sub- 
ject." 

Of  the  consultations  which  followed,  we  have  three  ac- 
counts, by  McKendree,  Capers,  and  Emory,  respectively, 
all  participants,  and  all  agreeing  in  essentials. t  McKen- 
dree disapproved  of  the  proposed  change;  the  other  two 
Bishops  were  favorable  to  some  alteration.  On  the  adjourn- 
ment of  Conference,  Friday  morning,  May  19,  Bishop 
George  invited  the  committee  to  meet  him  in  the  gallery  of 
the  Church.  He,  it  appears,  had  stated  in  a  note  to  Mr. 
Merritt,  the  author  of  the  original  resolution,  that  the  views 
of  the  two  parties  could  not  be  harmonized;  but  explana- 
tions were  now  made  on  this  point,  and  the  Bishop  set  forth 
his  "accommodating  plan"  to  the  satisfaction  of  Roszel; 
the  committee  then  united  on  a  report  written  by  John  Em- 
ory, which  the  Conference  passed  that  afternoon,  without 
debate,  by  a  majority  of  61  to  25.  It  included  the  nomina- 
tion by  the  Bishops  of  three  times  the  number  of  presiding 
elders  wanted,  from  which  the  Conference  should  elect,  and 
declared  "  that  the  presiding  elders  be,  and  they  hereby  are, 

*  Capers's  Metn.  in  Paine's  McKendree,  1. 409;  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  211- 
213. 

fCapers,  as  above;  Dr.  Emory's  Life  of  Bishop  Emory,  p.  146. 
:j:McKendree's  Journal  and  Capers's  Mem.  in  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  409, 
410,  415;  Dr.  Emory's  Life  of  Bishop  Emory,  p.  146. 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


made  the  advisory  council  of  the  bishop  or  president  of  the 
Conference  in  stationing  the  preachers."  * 

Immediately  upon  the  adoption  of  this  report,  the  Journal 
shows  that  Joshua  Soule  obtained  leave  of  absence  for  the 
afternoon.  He  at  once  prepared  the  following  letter,  ad- 
dressed to  Bishops  George  and  Roberts : 

Dear  Bishops:— In  consequence  of  an  act  of  the  General  Conference, 
passed  this  day,  in  which  I  conceive  the  constitution  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  is  violated,  and  that  Episcopal  government  which  has  hereto- 
fore distinguished  her  greatly  enervated,  by  a  transfer  of  executive  power 
from  the  Episcopacy  to  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  it  becomes  my 
duty  to  notify  you,  from  the  imposition  of  whose  hands  only  I  can  be  quali- 
fied for  the  office  of  Superintendent,  that  under  the  existing  state  of  things 
/  cannot,  consistently  -with  my  convictions  of  propriety  and  obligation,  enter  upon 
the  work  of  an  itinerant  General  Superintendent. 

I  was  elected  under  the  constitution  and  govermnent  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  UNIMPAIRED.  On  no  other  consideration  but. that  of  their  con- 
tinuance would  I  have  consented  to  be  considered  a  candidate  for  a  relation 
in  which  were  incorporated  such  arduous  labors  and  awful  responsibilities. 

I  do  not  feel  myself  at  liberty  to  wrest  myself  from  your  hands,  as  the 
act  of  the  General  Conference  has  placed  me  in  them  ;  but  /  solemnly  declare, 
and  could  appeal  to  the  Searcher  of  hearts  for  the  sincerity  of  my  intention,  that  I 
cannot  act  as  Superintendent  under  the  rules  this  day  made  and  established  by  the 
General  Conference. 

With  this  open  and  undisguised  declaration  before  you,  your  wisdom  will 
dictate  the  course  proper  to  be  pursued. 

I  ardently  desire  peace,  and  if  it  M'ill  tend  to  promote  it,  am  willing,  per- 
fectly willing,  that  my  name  should  rest  in  forgetfulness.-f 

This  act  of  the  Bishop-elect  was  prompt  and  decisive. 
The  question  was  not  new  to  him;  and  on  the  very  after- 
noon when  the  General  Conference  passed  the  measure  of 
whose  unconstitutionality  he  was  satisfied,  he  penned  and 
delivered  to  the  bishops  this  clear,  straightforward,  manly 
document.  The  candid  reader  will  keep  in  mind  (i)  that 
Joshua  Soule  was  himself  the  author  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  (2)  that,  in  particular,  he 
had  insisted,  against  Cooper,  on  the  exact  phraseology  of  the 
third  restrictive  rule,  which  forbade  the  General  Conference 
to  "  change  or  alter  any  fyart  or  rule  of  our  government,  so 
as  to  do  away  episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itiner- 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  221.   -f  P^'ne's  McKendrce,  I.  420,  421. 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  341 


ant  general  superintendency ;"  (3)  that  the  adoption  of  the 
report  which  embodied  this  Constitution  was  expressly  post- 
poned until  this  very  question  of  the  election  of  presiding 
elders  could  first  be  settled;  (4)  that  twice  in  his  letter  to 
the  Bishops,  Mr.  Soule  declares  that  he  "  cannot  enter  upon 
the  work  of,"  that  he  "  cannot  act  as,"  a  General  Superin- 
tendent; and,  while  leaving  the  final  disposition  of  the  mat- 
ter to  the  joint  wisdom  of  the  Bishops,  professes  perfect 
willingness  that  his  "name  should  rest  in  forgetfulness ;" 
(5)  that  such  prompt  declination  of  the  high  office  to  which 
the  General  Conference  had  elected  him,  can  leave  no 
doubt  as  to  the  purity  of  Mr.  Soule's  motives  and  the 
strength  and  clearness  of  his  conviction  of  the  unconstitu- 
tionality of  the  act,  which,  rather  than  obligate  himself  to 
execute,  he  would  surrender  his  election  to  the  General  Su- 
perintendency. 

When  Bishop  Roberts  brought  this  letter  to  the  notice  of 
Bishop  McKendree,  Monday,  May  22,  he  (Roberts)  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  the  Bishop-elect  did  not  seem  dis- 
posed to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  General  Conference. 
McKendree  thought  this  would  constitute  a  serious  objec- 
tion to  Mr.  Soule's  ordination;  but  doubted  whether  such  a 
sentiment  was  expressed  in  the  letter.  "  It  was  agreed," 
continues  McKendree,  in  his  Journal,  "  that  Bishop  Roberts 
should  see  Brother  Soule,  and  report  at  a  meeting  of  the 
Bishops  to  be  held  next  morning.  Soule  disavowed  the 
sentiment  which  the  letter  was  supposed  to  contain,  and 
stated  his  views  on  the  back  of  the  letter  in  terms  too  plain 
to  be  misunderstood." 

Bishop  McKendree  has  left  on  record  a  full  account  of 
the  private  consultations  of  the  Bishops: 

The  Bishops  met  early  next  morning  [Tuesday,  May  23]  and  the  commu- 
nication was  attentively  considered.  It  appeared  that  the  difficulties  of  the 
Bishop-elect  rested  entirely  upon  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
resolutions;  and  it  was  proposed  for  the  Bishops  to  express  their  opinions 
on  their  constitutionality.  Bishop  Roberts  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  reso- 
lutions of  the  Conference  were  an  infringement  of  the  constitution.  Bishop 
George  chose  to  be  silent.  The  senior  Bishop  considered  them  unconstitu- 
tional.  The  next  question  was  the  propriety  of  ordaining  the  Bishop-elect 


342  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


under  existing  circumstances.  It  was  unanimously  agreed  that  he  should 
be  ordained.  The  time  was  agreed  upon,  and  Bishop  George  was  appointed 
to  prepare  the  credentials,  and  to  preach  the  ordination-sermon.  The  senior 
Bishop  then  suggested  the  propriety  of  informing  the  Conference  of  the 
state  of  things.  It  was  approved,  and  he  was  requested  to  make  the  com- 
munication, and  the  Bishop-elect,  having  been  informed  of  the  design,  ap- 
proved of  the  course.  When  the  president — Bishop  Roberts — had  called  the 
attention  of  the  Conference,  the  senior  Bishop  laid  the  case  before  them. 
The  letter  of  the  Bishop-elect  to  the  Bishops  was  read ;  the  conclusion  of  the 
council  of  the  Bishops,  and  their  resolution  to  ordain  Brother  Soule  were 
stated,  as  well  as  an  intimation  of  their  opinions  respecting  the  constitution- 
al difficulty.* 

Thus  far  McKendree's  record:  from  the  Journal  of  the 
Conference,  we  gather,  that,  on  Tuesday  morning.  May  23, 
Bishop  Roberts  being  in  the  chair,  '*  the  debate  on  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration  was  suspended,  to  allow  Bishop 
McKendree  to  make  a  communication  to  the  General  Con- 
ference." t  This  communication  embraced  not  only  the 
matters  agreed  upon  at  the  Bishops'  meeting  in  the  early 
morning  of  the  same  day,  but  also  what  McKendree  euphe- 
mistically styles  above  "  an  intimation  of  his  opinions  re- 
specting the  constitutional  difficulty."  His  letter  had  been 
prepared  the  day  before  and  runs  as  follows : 

Baltimore,  May  22,  1820. 

To  the  Bishops  and  General  Conference,  now  in  session : 

On  Saturday  evening  I  received  a  copy  of  the  resolution  which  passed  on 
the  19th  instant,  which,  contrary  to  the  established  order  of  our  Church,  au- 
thorizes the  Annual  Conference  to  elect  the  Presiding  Elders,  and  thereby 
transfers  the  executive  authority  from  the  General  Superintendents  to  the 
Annual  Conferences,  and  leaves  the  Bishops  divested  of  their  power  to  over- 
see the  business  under  the  full  responsibility  of  General  Superintendents.  I 
extremely  regret  that  you  have,  by  this  measure,  reduced  me  to  the  painful 
necessity  of  pronouncing  the  resolution  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  destitute 
of  the  proper  authority  of  the  Church. 

While  I  am  firmly  bound,  by  virtue  of  my  office,  to  see  that  all  the  rules 
are  properly  enforced,  I  am  equally  bound  to  prevent  the  imposition  of  that 
which  is  not  properly  rule.  Under  the  influence  of  this  sentiment,  and  con- 
sidering the  importance  of  the  subject,  I  enter  this  protest. 

If  the  delegated  Conference  has  a  right  in  one  case  to  impose  rules  con- 
trary to  the  constitution  which  binds  hundreds  of  preachers  and  thousands 
of  members  in  Christian  fellowship,  and  on  which  their  own  existence  and 
the  validity  of  their  acts  depend,  why  may  not  the  same  right  exist  in  anoth- 
er.' why  not  in  all  cases. >    If  the  right  of  infringing  the  constitution  is  ad- 


<'  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  422-424.  f  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  229. 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  343 


niitted,  what  will  secure  the  rights  and  privileges  of  preachers  and  people, 
together  with  the  friends  of  the  Church?  If  the  constitution  cannot  protect 
the  executive  authority,  in  vain  may  the  moneyed  institution  and  individual 
rights  call  for  help  from  that  source. 

Believing,  as  I  do,  that  this  resolution  is  unauthorized  by  the  constitu- 
tion, and  therefore  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  rule  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  I  consider  myself  under  no  obligation  to  enforce  or  to  enjoin  it  on 
others  to  do  so. 

I  present  this  as  the  expression  of  my  attachment  to  the  constitution  and 
government  of  the  Church,  and  of  my  sincere  desire  to  preserve  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  whole  body. 

Your  worn-down  and  afflicted  friend,  VV.  McKendree.* 

That  this  letter  was  presented  at  the  same  time  with  the 
one  from  the  Bishop-elect,  is  evident,  not  only  from  its  date, 
but  from  the  memorandum  of  Mr.  Capers,  who  says,  "  Bish- 
op McKendree  came  forward  and  stated  his  objections  to 
the  rule  adopted,  and  had  read  in  the  Conference  a  letter 
from  Joshua  Soule."  "  This  was  followed,"  says  Mr.  Em- 
ory, "  by  a  formal  protest  against  the  resolutions,  by  one  of 
the  bishops."  t 

Bishop  McKendree's  views,  as  more  fully  expressed  later, 
are  thus  summarized  by  Bishop  McTyeire : 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  Bishops,  as  general  superintendents,  to  carry  into 
effect  the  laws  made  by  the  General  Conference ;  therefore,  they  are  elect- 
ed by  that  bod}',  and  amenable  to  it  for  their  moral  and  official  conduct.  In 
this  way  uniformity  may  be  preserved  throughout  the  Annual  Conferences, 
and  errors  in  the  administration  corrected;  while  the  administration,  even 
from  the  very  extremities  of  the  work,  through  the  responsibility  of  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendents,  is  brought  under  the  inspection  and  control  of  the 
General  Conference. 

The  presiding  elder,  ever  since  the  office  was  created  in  1792,  is  the  agent 
or  assistant  of  a  Bishop;  is  part  of  the  executive  government;  and  in  his  dis- 
trict is  authorized  to  discharge  all  the  duties  of  the  absent  Bishop,  except 
ordination.  The  authority  by  which  the  Bishop  is  enabled  "to  oversee  the 
business  of  the  Church  "  consists  largely,  therefore,  in  the  power  of  appoint- 
ing the  presiding  elders.  In  case  they  should  neglect  or  refuse  to  do  their 
duty,  as  laid  down  in  the  Discipline,  it  becomes  the  dut}-  of  the  General 
Superintendent  to  remove  such  from  office,  and  supply  their  places  with 
others  who  will  carry  out  the  law.  But  if  the  presiding  elders  are  elected 
by  the  various  Annual  Conferences,  they  may  counteract  the  General  Su- 
perintendent, or  clash  with  each  other,  administering  law  differently  in  dif- 
ferent places.  How  could  the  General  Conference  then  hold  the  Bishop  re- 
sponsible for  the  perversion  or  contempt  of  its  laws.'  One  Annual  Confer- 
*  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  418,  419.    f  Dr.  Emory's  Life  of  Bushop  Emory,  p.  147. 


344  '^^^  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


ence  may  sustain  a  presiding  elder  in  an  administration  for  which  another 
Annual  Conference  would  condemn  him.  The  General  Conference,  in  thus 
transferring  executive  power  from  the  General  Superintendents  to  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  effectually  destroys  its  own  power  of  regulating  the  gen- 
eral administration;  and  the  connection  between  making  laws  and  execut- 
ing them  ceases* 

The  ordination  of  Mr.  Soule  had  been  appointed  for  ii 
A.M.,  Wednesday,  May  24.  "  To  the  sentiments  of  Bishop 
McKendree  and  Mr.  Soule,"  says  Mr.  Capers,  "  those  in  fa- 
vor of  a  change  took  exceptions,  held  a  caucus  without  con- 
sulting those  not  in  favor  of  the  change,  and  agreed  to  arrest 
the  ordination  of  J.  Soule." t  Accordingly  on  Tuesday  aft- 
ernoon, after  the  communications  of  Bishop  McKendree  on 
the  morning  of  the  same  day,  and  with  the  announcement 
of  the  ordination  for  the  next  morning  published,  D.  Os- 
trander  and  J.  Smith  submitted  the  following: 

Whereas  brother  Joshua  Soule,  bishop-elect,  has  signified  in  his  letter 
to  the  episcopacy,  which  letter  was  read  in  open  Conference,  that  if  he  be 
ordained  bishop  he  will  not  hold  himself  bound  by  a  certain  resolution  of 
the  General  Conference,  relative  to  the  nomination  and  election  of  presid- 
ing elders;  wherefore. 

Resolved,  That  the  bishops  be  earnestly  requested  by  this  Conference  to 
defer  or  postpone  the  ordination  of  the  said  Joshua  Soule  until  he  gives 
satisfactory  explanations  to  this  Conference.  J 

Mr.  Soule  had  not  said,  however,  that  "  if  he  be  ordained 
bishop,  he  will  not  hold  himself  bound,"  etc.;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  he  had  declined  to  "  enter  upon  the  work  of  an  itin- 
erant General  Superintendent,"  at  the  same  time  leaving  the 
final  disposition  of  his  case  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishops,  at 
whose  disposal  the  General  Conference  had  placed  him. 
Thereupon,  after  further  inquiry,  the  Bishops  "unani- 
mously agreed  that  he  should  be  ordained,"  and  so  an- 
nounced to  the  Conference,  with  all  the  related  informa- 
tion in  their  possession.  This  action  of  the  Bishops,  it  must 
be  allowed,  if  it  had  been  carried  into  execution,  would 
have  placed  Mr.  Soule,  after  his  ordination,  in  the  same  cat- 
egory with  Bishop  McKendree,  who  declared,  "  I  consider 
myself  under  no  obligation  to  enforce,"  etc.    But  Mr.  Os- 

*  Hist,  of  Meth.,  p.  570,  footnote.  -fPaine's  McKendree,  I.  412. 

J  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  230. 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference 1820.  345 


trander's  resolution  did  Mr.  Soule  a  great  injustice  in  attrib- 
uting to  him  what  was  the  consequence  of  the  unanimous 
decision  of  the  bishops,  after  his  candid  communication  had 
been  laid  before  them.  "After  some  debate,"  says  the 
Journal,  "  brother  Soule  made  some  remarks,"  and  perhaps 
called  attention  to  the  false  light  in  which  the  resolution  be- 
fore the  Conference  placed  himself.  After  a  motion  for  in- 
definite postponement,  and  before  the  question  was  taken,  the 
resolution  was  withdrawn.  Immediately,  a  reconsideration 
of  the  presiding-elder  question  was  moved;  for  those  who 
were  opposed  to  the  election  of  presiding  elders  considered 
themselves  no  longer  tied  to  the  compromise.  Wednesday 
morning,  a  postponement  of  the  reconsideration  was  moved, 
but  the  motion  was  lost.  The  motion  for  reconsideration 
"  being  under  debate,  it  was  suggested  by  brother  Reed  that 
if  we  go  into  the  ordination  of  brother  Soule,  it  was  now  time 
to  rise  for  that  object;"  but  at  this  critical  juncture  the 
manly  dignity*  of  Mr.  Soule  again  came  to  the  rescue,  and 
at  "five  minutes  before  11  o'clock,"  he  "rose  and  ex- 
pressed a  wish  that  the  General  Conference  should,  by  vote, 
request  the  episcopacy  to  delay  his  ordination  for  some  time ; ' ' 
but  "  no  order  was  taken  on  the  subject."  The  debate  on 
reconsideration  went  on,  and  at  seven  minutes  before  twelve 
o'clock,  it  was  discovered  that  the  Conference  was  without 
a  quorum.  The  Discipline  required  two-thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers to  make  a  quorum,  and  it  looks  a  little  as  if  the  oppo- 
nents of  reconsideration  resorted  to  dilatory  tactics.  Bishop 
George  stated  that  the  episcopacy  had  deferred  the  ordina- 
tion, and  the  Conference  adjourned.! 

At  roll-call,  Wednesday  afternoon,  all  but  four  members 
were  present,  and  Bishop  Roberts  took  the  chair.  The  vote 
on  the  motion  for  reconsideration  was  finally  taken  by  ballot, 
and  resulted  in  a  tie — 43  to  43.  The  chair  properly  pro- 
nounced  it   lost.    During   Thursday   morning's  session, 

*Dr.  Stevens  speaks  of  Bishop  Soule's  dignified  carriage  as  at  times 
verging  on  majesty. 

tGen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  231. 


346  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


*•  Bishop  George  informed  the  Conference  that  the  ordina- 
tion of  brother  Soule  would  take  place  at  12  o'clock  to-day 
in  this  house."    Thus  the  Bishops  persisted;  but  promptly 

brother  Joshua  Soule  presented  a  communication  in  which 
he  stated  his  resignation  of  the  office  of  a  bishop  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  which  he  had  been  elect- 
ed." His  letter  was  laid  on  the  table.  At  the  opening  of 
the  afternoon  session,  Mr.  Soule  "expressed  a  wish  that  the 
Conference  would  come  to  a  decision  on  his  letter  of  resig- 
nation." It  was  moved  and  seconded  that  he  be  requested 
to  withdraw  his  letter,  but  this  motion  was  itself  withdrawn, 
and  the  Conference  postponed  consideration  of  the  subject 
until  the  next  morning.* 

Friday  morning,  May  26,  a  resolution  was  introduced, 
"  that  the  rule  passed  at  this  Conference  respecting  the 
nomination  and  election  of  presiding  elders  be  suspended 
until  the  next  General  Conference,  and  that  the  Superin- 
tendents be,  and  they  are  hereby  directed  to  act  under  the 
old  rule  respecting  the  appointment  of  presiding  elders." 
This  resolution,  if  passed,  would  give  relief  to  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree,  clear  the  way  for  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Soule,  and 
perhaps  calm  the  dangerous  excitement  that  had  now  arisen. 
After  a  protracted  debate,  in  which  Griffith,  Hedding,  and 
Bangs  took  part,  the  measure  of  suspension  was  passed,  late 
in  the  afternoon,  by  a  vote  of  45  to  35.  Meantime,  at  an 
earlier  hour  of  the  afternoon  session,  "  the  letter  of  brother 
Soule,"  "  in  which  he  tendered  his  resignation,"  being  read, 
it  was  moved  to  accept  it;  but  the  motion  was  at  once  with- 
drawn ;  whereupon  Roszel  and  Hodges  offered  a  resolution, 
"that  brother  Soule  be,  and  hereby  is  requested  to  with- 
draw his  resignation,  and  comply  with  the  wishes  of  his 
brethren  in  submitting  to  be  ordained."  "Carried,"  says 
the  Journal;  "forty-nine  voting  for  it,"  says  Mr.  Capers; 
**he  was  requested  to  withdraw  his  petition,"  deposes  Bish- 
McKendree,  "by  a  larger  majority  than  that  by  which  he 
had  been  elected."    Mr.  Soule's  path  to  ordination  seemed 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  332,  333. 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  347 


now  open  and  smooth,  the  bishops  and  the  General  Confer- 
ference  agreeing  in  demanding  it,  especially  as  at  the  same 
session,  the  presiding  elder  resolutions  were  suspended.  But 
"the  bishop-elect"  had  been  "  attacked  in  different  ways, 
and  sorely  pressed;  "  the  tide  of  excited  feeling  had  been 
running  high  for  two  weeks,  and  it  had  become  impossible 
for  a  man  of  Mr.  Soule's  deUcate  and  high  sense  of  honor 
to  submit  to  ordination.  "  Having  come  into  Conference," 
he  "  again  stated  his  purpose  to  resign,"  and,  adds  the  Jour- 
nal, "his  resignation  was  accepted."  This  appears  to  have 
been  done,  however,  not  by  a  reconsideration  of  the  former 
refusal  to  accept  it,  nor  even  by  formal  vote  of  the  Confer- 
ence, but  by  tacit  submission  to  the  peremptory  decision  of 
the  Bishop-elect  that  he  could  not  be  ordained.  The  Jour- 
nal does  not  name,  as  it  usually  does,  the  authors  of  a  reso- 
lution of  acceptance,  nor  does  it  state  the  majority  by  which 
the  measure  prevailed.  When  the  refusal  of  the  Conference 
to  accept  his  resignation,  "was  stated  by  Bishop  George  to 
J.  Soule,"  says  Mr.  Capers,  "  he  still  stated  his  wish  to  re- 
sign: upon  which  James  Quinn  remarked  'We  cannot  ac- 
cept or  receive  his  resignation,'  "  meaning,  doubtless,  that 
it  was  not  possible  to  reverse  the  increased  majority,  by 
which  the  resignation  had  just  been  refused.  "  No  vote  was 
taken  on  it,"  continues  Mr.  Capers,  "  permission,  therefore, 
was  not  given  him  by  vote  of  the  Conference  to  resign." 
"  It  was  announced  from  the  chair  that  it  was  accepted," 
says  Bishop  McKendree,  "  but  that  it  was  accepted  by  a 
vote  of  the  Conference  was  not  ascertained. ' '  *  Man}^  of  Mr. 
Soule's  best  friends  opposed  the  resignation.  They  entreated 
him  by  his  love  of  the  Church  and  of  constitutional  Metho- 
dism, and  in  view  of  the  increased  majority  which  persisted 
in  demanding  his  ordination,  to  submit.  But  he  was  con- 
scientiously convinced  that  he  could  never  perform  the 
duties  of  a  Bishop  under  the  new  plan,  and  that  in  admin- 
istering the  law,  "  fealty  to  the  Delegated  General  Con- 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  235-237;  Paine's  McKendree,  Capers's  Mem.,  I. 
413;  McKendree's  Journal,  I.  424. 


348 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


ference  would  be  treason  to  the  Church."  To  avoid  conflict 
with  the  Conference,  and  an  apparently  arrogant  assumption 
of  power,  he  believed  himself  obliged  to  reject  the  coun- 
sels of  friends  and  to  place  the  responsibility  again  upon 
the  Conference.  "  It  is  difficult  to  conceive,"  says  Bishop 
Paine,  "  the  mental  agony  which  such  a  train  of  circum- 
stances would  produce  in  an  intelligent,  conscientious,  and 
sensitive  mind."  Mr.  Soule,  it  seems,  was  unaware  of  the 
determination  of  the  Bishops  to  ordain  him  at  12  m.,  Thurs- 
day, May  25,  and  was  taken  by  surprise  when  Bishop 
George  made  the  second  announcement  of  such  an  ap- 
pointment in  the  Conference.  He  hastily  presented  his 
resignation,  and  on  the  same  day  made  an  explanation  to  the 
Bishops : 

Bishops  McKendree,  George,  and  Roberts. 

Dear  Bishops:  The  course  which  I  have  pursued,  in  presenting  my  resig- 
nation to  the  Conference,  may  savor  of  disrespect  to  you,  and  therefore 
needs  apology.  I  spent  the  night  in  a  sleepless  manner,  and  could  not  pre- 
pare the  communications,  which  I  designed  to  make  to  you  and  to  the  Con- 
ference, in  time  to  see  you  until  after  Conference  hours.  Not  having  the 
least  intimation  or  idea  of  the  appointment  for  ordination  this  morning,  my 
intention  was  to  have  seen  you  together,  immediately  after  the  morning 
session,  and  to  communicate  to  you  first  my  resignation,  and  to  the  Confer- 
ence at  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  session.  But  on  coming  to  the  Confer- 
ence, I  learned  that  the  ordination  was  notified  for  this  morning;  and  in  or- 
der to  prevent  improper  excitement  as  to  the  time  appointed  for  ordination, 
I  presented  my  resignation  to  the  Conference  when  I  did.  I  hope  you  will 
not  pass  a  severe  censure  on  me  until  you  shall  hear  the  reasons  which 
have  led  to  this  measure. 

Yours  most  respectfully,  Joshua  Soule. 

May  25,  1820. 

At  an  earlier  time,  or,  as  the  tenor  and  tenses  of  the 
letter  (which  is  without  date,)  would  indicate,  when  the 
Bishops  first  had  his  case  under  consideration,  Mr.  Soule 
addressed  himself  to  Bishop  McKendree: 

Dear  Bishop  McKendree:  I  cannot  AovHoi you  will  think  me  sincere  when 
I  assure  you  that  the  labor  of  my  mind,  in  the  extraordinary  situation  in 
which  I  am  placed,  has  weighed  down  my  spirits,  and  in  some  measure, 
broken  down  that  firmness  of  resolution  which  dignifies  the  human  charac- 
ter, and  of  which,  I  trust,  I  have  not  been  altogether  destitute  while  I  have 
encountered  that  portion  of  adversity  which,  in  the  administrations  of  Prov- 
idence, has  fallen  to  my  lot. 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  349 


I  entered  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  when  I  was  but  a  child.  I 
have  grown  up  in  her  bosom,  and  my  attachment  to  her  institutions  has 
increased  with  my  increasing  years.  My  happiness  has  been  ingrafted  on 
her  communion,  and  I  have  contemplated  her  apostolic  order  with  admira- 
tion and  delight.  The  constitution  which  secures  her  government,  and 
guards  the  powers  and  privileges  of  her  ministers  and  members,  1  have  ever 
held  sacred.  To  touch  it  in  any  other  -way  than  that  which  is  provided  in  the  con- 
stitution itself,  awakens  my  sensibility  and  gives  me  indescribable  pain.  In 
this  state  of  things  the  important  question  is, //ow  5^// /ac^/  O  that  wisdom 
from  above  might  guide  my  decision! 

I  was  elected  to  the  office  of  a  Superintendent  when  the  constitution  and 
government  were  untouched;  but,  by  an  extraordinary  train  of  occurrences, 
between  my  election  and  consecration  to  office,  a  law  has  been  passed  with 
special  reference  to  the  Episcopacy,  which,  in  my  judgment,  transfers  an 
important  executive  prerogative  from  the  Episcopacy  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, and  which  law  I  cannot  conscientiously  administer,  because  I  firmly 
believe  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  doubt  my  right  io  administer 
it.  If  I  receive  the  imposition  of  hands,  under  these  circumstances,  without 
an  open  and  honest  declaration  to  the  body  which  elected  me,  iiow  shall  I 
sustain  the  character  of  integrity.'  What  shall  I  answer  when,  in  the 
course  of  my  administration,  I  am  placed  at  issue  with  the  law.''  I  have  se- 
riously reflected  on  the  subject  of  a.  partial  (sectional)  visitation  of  the  Con- 
ferences. I  have  attempted  to  analyze  this  in  relation  to  our  plan  of  itinerant 
General  Superintendency,  and  I  perceive  a  dissonance  which  I  cannot  harmo- 
nize. I  apprehend  that  my  path,  should  I  proceed,  would  inevitably  lead 
me  to  a  point  where  I  should  be  at  issue  with  my  predecessors  and  seniors 
in  office.  I  declare  to  you,  my  dear  sir,  that  these  considerations,  connected 
with  the  train  of  consequences  which  must  follow,  drink  up  my  spirit  and 
involve  me  in  a  torrent  of  difficulties  and  responsibilities  which  that  portion 
of  fortitude  which  Providence  has  imparted  to  me  is  not  sufficient  to  sustain. 
If  this  is  weakness,  I  am  weak. 

Had  I  been  ordained  previously  to  the  passing  of  that  resolution,  my 
path  would  have  been  marked  with  sunbeams;  it  is  now  quite  otherwise. 

By  many  I  shall  be  considered  an  enthusiast,  and  shall,  probably,  sink  in 
the  estimation  of  all;  but  my  conscious  integrity  I  hope  to  retain  as  long  as 
I  live.  And,  rather  than  practice  the  least  deception,  I  will  cheerfully  suffer 
the  loss  of  all  I  hold  dear  on  earth. 

From  these  considerations,  the  final  decision  of  my  mind  (not  unaccom- 
panied with  prayers  and  tears)  is,  that  /  cannot  receive  the  imposition  of  hands 
■without  a  full  and  undisguised  development  of  my  situation  to  the  General  Con- 
ference* 

To  every  man  who  spoke  to  me  on  the  subject,  previous  to  my  election, 
I  unequivocally  declared  my  entire  adherence  to  the  old-established  plan,  and 

♦Sept.  1, 1820,  Mr.  Soule  wrote  to  Bishop  McKendree,  "With  this  conviction  [of  unconstitu- 
tionality] I  might  have  gone  silently  and  perhaps  without  opposition  to  the  altar  of  consecration. 
But  how  should  I  have  stood  in  the  judgment  of  my  own  mind?  or  how  should  I  be  able  to  an. 
swer  for  this  silence  to  that  great  religious  body  to  which  the  voice  of  the  Conference  had  placed 
me  in  the  most  responsible  relation?  " 


350  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


that  I  stood  or  fell  vjith  the  constitution  and  the  government.  I  believe  no  one  can 
say,  with  a  knowledge  of  my  sentiments,  that  I  have  deceived  any  man.  I 
have  betrayed  no  trust. 

I  cannot  say  that  I  feel  no  sensibility  at  the  thought  of  losing  the  confi- 
dence of  those  friends  to  whom  I  have  been  bound  by  the  most  sacred  ties 
for  a  succession  of  years;  and  if  I  am  doomed  to  sink  in  your  estimation, 
suffer  me  to  entreat  you  to  consider  fully  the  difficulties  of  my  situation, 
and  ascribe  to  the  frailty  of  human  nature  that  which,  I  most  solemnly  as- 
sure you,  is  dictated  neither  by  perverseness  of  -will  nor  impurity  of  motive. 
And  whatever  loss  I  may  sustain  in  your  confidence,  permit  me  to  beg  that 
I  may  live  in  yowx  prayers.  Joshua  Soule. 

Thus  the  original  communication  of  the  Bishops  to  the 
General  Conference  of  their  intention  to  ordain  Mr.  Soule 
was  not  only  "approved"  by  the  bishop-elect,  as  Bishop 
McKendree  says,  but  was  apparently  suggested  by  him,  and 
certainly  made  a  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  his  ordination:  "  I 
cannot  receive  the  ordination  of  hands  without  a  full  and  un- 
disguised development  of  my  situation  to  the  General  Con- 
ference." 

A  biography  of  Bishop  Soule  is  still  a  desideratum.  The 
facts  are  Mr.  Soule's  vindication;  but  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
they  have  not  hitherto,  in  the  literature  of  the  Church,  been 
presented  in  such  completeness  and  order  as  indisputably  to 
answer  this  end.  In  this  narrative,  I  have  sought  to  com- 
bine, mainly  in  chronological  order,  all  the  data  derivable 
from  contemporary  documents,  that  this  critical  chapter  in 
Bishop  Soule's  life  may  be  presented  to  the  last  detail. 
This  minute  treatment  of  a  transaction,  concerning  which, 
at  home  as  well  as  abroad,  accurate  information  has  seemed 
lamentably  lacking,  is  demanded  no  less  by  the  duty  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  Bishop  Soule's 
memory  than  by  the  constitutional  aims  of  this  history.  An 
orderly  array  of  the  facts  constitutes  a  sufficient  vindication 
of  Mr.  Soule ;  to  which  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  this 
statement  of  Bishop  McKendree's: 

The  Conference,  by  the  vote  of  a  respectable  majorit3',  had  put  him  into 
the  hands  of  the  Bishops  for  ordination.  In  this  situation  he  certainly  had  a 
right  to  address  a  letter  to  the  Bishops,  and  when  he  was  involved  in  diffi- 
culties by  a  subsequent  act  of  the  Conference,  he  certainly  acted  an  honora- 
ble part  to  inform  them  of  his  difficulties  prior  to  his  ordination,  and  there- 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  351 


by  put  it  in  their  power  to  guard  against  future  difficulties.  For  this  letter 
and  its  contents  Brother  Soule  was  accountable  to  the  Bishops,  not  to  the 
Conference.  Had  the  Bishops  judged  his  conduct  unworthy  of  the  trust 
confided  to  him  by  his  election,  they  would  have  returned  him  to  the  Con- 
ference with  their  objections  to  his  ordination.  This  would  have  brought 
him  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Conference,  so  far  as  to  reconsider  and  re- 
scind their  vote,  or  confirm  it,  and  order  his  consecration.  But  instead  of 
this,  after  a  formal  examination  of  the  subject,  they  [i.  e..  the  Bishops]  had 
admitted  his  principle,  resolved  on  his  ordination;  and  that  nothing  might 
be  done  in  the  dark,  they  previously  informed  the  Conference  of  their  de- 
sign. The  General  Conference  had  a  right  to  take  exceptions,  but  they 
should  have  been  directed  against  the  Bishops,  and  not  against  the  Bishop- 
elect,  who  was  not  accountable  to  them  for  this  act,  and  was  then  under  the 
protection  of  the  Bishops,  who  were  amenable  to  the  Conference  for  their 
official  acts.  For  the  Conference  to  undertake  to  convince  the  Bishops  of 
an  error  in  their  determination  to  ordain  the  Bishop-elect  under  existing 
circumstances,  would  have  been  proper;  and  as  the  Bishops  had  resolved  to 
ordain  him,  it  would  have  been  better  for  the  President  to  arrest  proceed- 
ings against  BrothA-  Soule,  and  invite  the  attack  upon  themselves.* 

Saturday,  May  27,  Messrs.  Wells  and  Capers  moved  that 
"we  immediately  proceed  to  elect  a  general  superintend- 
ent." After  a  motion  to  lay  it  on  the  table  was  lost,  the 
motion  was  withdrawn.  This  withdrawal  was  probably  oc- 
casioned by  information  given  out  by  the  Bishops ;  for,  on 
that  day,  a  protest  was  sent  to  them,  against  entering  into 
another  election,  written  by  Nathan  Bangs,  and  signed  by 
thirty  members  of  the  New  York,  New  England,  Genesee, 
Philadelphia,  and  other  Conferences. t  The  fact  was  that  a 
new  election  could  have  led  to  but  one  result,  the  reelection 
of  Mr.  Soule,  and  this  would  have  been  embarrassing  and  ir- 
ritating to  all  concerned.  Bishops  George  and  Roberts,  as- 
sisted by  the  Senior  Bishop,  agreed  to  do  the  work  of  the 
quadrennium,  and  so  the  question  was  disposed  of. 

The  only  slavery  legislation  was  the  repeal  of  the  law  per- 
mitting the  Annual  Conferences  "  to  form  their  own  regula- 
tions about  buying  and  selling  slaves."  The  Canada  ques- 
tion also  claimed  a  share  of  attention.  Messrs.  Bennett  and 
Black,  missionaries  of  the  British  Conference  in  Canada,  at- 
tended the  General  Conference  of  1816,  with  a  proposal  that 
the  Americans  should  confine  their  operations  to  Upper,  and 


*  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  424,  425.    i[/btd.,  I.  436,  437. 


352  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  British  to  Lower,  Canada.  But  this  division  of  territory 
and  relinquishment  of  members  was  decHned,  the  General 
Conference  declaring,  "that  we  cannot  consistently  with 
our  duty  to  the  societies  of  our  charge  in  the  Canadas,  give 
up  any  part  of  them,  or  any  of  our  chapels  in  those  prov- 
inces, to  the  superintendency  of  the  British  Connection." 
In  1820,  however,  many  and  urgent  memorials  were  re- 
ceived from  the  Canadian  societies,  and  the  General  Con- 
ference empowered  the  Bishops  "  to  negotiate  with  the  Brit- 
ish Conference  respecting  Lower  Canada,  in  the  way  and 
manner  they  shall  see  fit,"  and,  if  possible,  to  send  a  dele- 
gate to  England  for  this  purpose.  The  Rev.  John  Emory 
was  appointed,  and,  in  their  letter  of  official  instructions  to 
him,  the  Bishops  say,  "  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  most  ef- 
fectual means  to  prevent  collisions  in  future  will  be  to  estab- 
hsh  a  specific  line  by  which  our  field  of  labors  shall  be 
bounded  on  one  side,  and  the  British  missionaries  on  the 
other.  With  this  view  you  are  at  liberty  to  stipulate  that  our 
preachers  shall  confine  their  labors  in  Canada  to  the  upper 
province,  provided  the  British  missionaries  will  confine 
theirs  to  the  lower."  *  Mr.  Emory  succeeded  in  effecting 
this  arrangement  with  the  British  Conference,  and,  accord- 
ingly. Bishop  McKendree  addressed  to  "the  private  and 
ofl[icial  members,  trustees,"  etc.,  in  Lower  Canada,  a  circu- 
lar letter  dated  October  16,  1820: 

It  has  been  agreed  that  our  British  brethren  shall  supply  the  Lower 
Provinces,  and  our  preachers  the  Upper.  It  becomes  our  duty,  therefore, 
to  inform  you  of  this  agreement,  and  to  advise  you,  in  the  most  affectionate 
and  earnest  manner,  to  put  yourselves  and  your  chapels  under  the  care  of 
our  British  brethren,  as  their  Societies  and  chapels  in  the  Upper  Province 
will  be  put  under  our  care.  .  .  .  This  communication,  we  confess,  is  not 
made  without  pain.  .  .  .  But  ne(;^ssity  is  laid  upon  us.  .  .  .  It  is  a 
peace-offering.    .    .    .    Forgive,  therefore,  our  seeming  to  give  you  up. 

Accordingly  a  committee  of  three  preachers  from  each 
Connection  met  at  Montreal,  Feb.  15,  1821,  and  fixed  the 
time  and  manner  for  delivering  up  the  several  charges 
which  were  to  be  relinquished  on  both  sides. 


*  Dr.  Emory's  Life  of  Bishop  Emory,  pp.  93,  94. 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  353 


Thus  the  General  Conference  empowered  the  Bishops, 
and  the  Bishops  empowered  Mr.  Emory,  and  Mr.  Emory 
contracted  with  the  British  Conference,  to  surrender  to  that 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  a  portion  of  the  membership  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  return  for  a  like  cession 
from  that  body.  The  contract  was  faithfully  executed. 
The  constitutional  question  involved  is  delicate  and  impor- 
tant; but  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  this  action  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1820  is  not  an  applicable  and  effective  con- 
stitutional precedent  for  the  division  of  the  Church  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1844. 

On  the  last  day  of  the  session,  however,  a  measure  of  vi- 
tal importance  was  passed.  In  1820  the  Constitution  of  1808 
was  subjected  to  its  first  severe  strain,  and  a  grave  defect  in 
its  provisions  was  revealed.  No  tribunal  had  been  provided 
to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  acts  of  the  General 
Conference.  There  were  many  parties  in  interest,  the 
Church,  the  General  Conference,  the  Bishops,  and  the 
Connection  of  itinerant  preachers,  distributed  in  the  several 
Annual  Conferences.  "  This  want  of  a  constitutional  test," 
remarks  a  high  authority,  "  must  be  supplied  sooner  or  later 
by  the  civil,  if  not  by  the  Church,  courts."  Face  to  face 
with  the  practical  difficulty  in  an  alarming  form,  the  General 
Conference  of  1820  adopted  the  following  measure  of  relief : 

Whereas  a  difference  has  arisen  in  the  General  Conference  about  the  con- 
stitutionality of  a  certain  resolution  passed  concerning  the  appointment  of 
presiding  elders;  and  whereas  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  proper  tribu- 
nal to  judge  of  and  determine  such  a  question;  and  whereas  it  appears  im- 
portant to  us  that  some  course  should  be  taken  to  determine  this  business, 
therefore, 

Resolved,  &c.,  That  we  will  advise,  and  hereby  do  advise  the  several  an- 
nual conferences  to  pass  such  resolutions  as  will  enable  the  next  General 
Conference  so  to  alter  the  constitution  that  whenever  a  resolution  or  motion 
which  goes  to  alter  any  part  of  our  Discipline  is  passed  by  the  General  Con- 
ference it  shall  be  examined  by  the  superintendent  or  superintendents;  and 
if  they,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  judge  it  unconstitutional,  they  shall, 
within  three  days  after  its  passage,  return  it  to  the  conference  with  their  ob- 
jections to  it  in  writing.  And  whenever  a  resolution  is  so  returned,  the 
conference  shall  reconsider  it.  and  if  it  pass  by  a  majority  of  two-thirds  it 
shall  be  constitutional  and  pass  into  a  law,  notwithstanding  the  objections  of 
23 


354  '^^^  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  superintendents;  and  if  it  be  not  returned  within  three  days,  it  shall  be 
considered  as  not  objected  to  and  become  a  law* 

Thus,  by  a  majority  vote,  the  General  Conference  of  1820 
agreed  to  the  principle  of  a  veto  power  to  be  exercised  by  the 
Bishops  over  all  enactments  of  the  General  Conference, 
which  in  the  preamble  was  acknowledged  to  be  no  "  proper 
tribunal  to  judge  of  and  determine  such  a  question."  This 
measure  provided,  not  merely  a  method  by  which  the  Bish- 
ops might  carry  an  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  a  General 
Conference  to  the  tribunal  of  the  Annual  Conferences — 
which  really  lodges  the  veto  power  in  the  body  of  the  travel- 
ing ministry — but,  in  the  strictest  sense,  clothed  the  episco- 
pacy with  a  veto  power,  which  required  a  two-thirds  majori- 
ty of  the  General  Conference  to  overcome  it.  We  may  here 
sacrifice  chronological  order  to  topical  completeness,  and 
finish  the  history  of  such  action  in  our  Church.  There  is 
no  record  in  the  Journal  of  1824  of  the  action  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  on  this  measure;  but,  instead,  a  forward  step  is 
taken  in  the  evolution  of  this  species  of  constitutional  legisla- 
tion. Tuesday,  May  18,  Lovick  Pierce  and  William  Winans 
gave  notice  of  intention  to  introduce  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Confer- 
ence assembled,  That  it  be  and  is  hereby  recommended  to  the  several  annu- 
al conferences  to  adopt  the  following  article  as  a  provision  to  be  annexed  to 
the  sixth  article  of  the  "  limitations  and  restrictions  "  adopted  by  the  Gener- 
al Conference  in  180S,  viz.: — 

Provided,  also,  that  whenever  the  delegated  General  Conference  shall 
pass  any  rule  or  rules  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  bishops,  or  a  majority 
of  them,  are  contrary  to  or  an  infringement  upon  the  above  "  limitations  and 
restrictions,"  or  any  one  of  them,  such  rule  or  rules  being  returned  to  the 
conference  within  three  days  after  their  passage,  together  with  the  objec- 
tions of  the  bishops  to  them,  in  writing,  the  conference  shall  reconsider  such 
rule  or  rules,  and  if,  upon  reconsideration,  they  shall  pass  by  a  majority  of 
two-thirds  of  the  members  present,  they  shall  be  considered  as  rules,  and  go 
into  immediate  effect;  but  in  case  a  less  majority  shall  differ  from  the  opin- 
ion of  the  bishops,  and  they  continue  to  sustain  their  objections,  the  rule  or 
rules  objected  to  shall  be  laid  before  the  annual  conferences,  in  which  case 
the  decision  of  a  majority  of  all  the  members  of  the  annual  conference  pres- 
ent when  the  vote  shall  be  taken  shall  be  final.  In  taking  the  vote  in  all 
such  cases  in  the  annual  conferences,  the  secretaries  shall  give  a  certificate 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  a38. 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  355 


of  the  number  of  votes,  both  in  the  affirmative  and  negative,  and  such  cer- 
tificates shall  be  forwarded  to  the  editor  and  general  book-steward,  who, 
with  one  or  more  of  the  bishops,  who  may  be  present,  shall  be  a  committee 
to  canvass  the  votes  and  certify  the  result.* 

Friday  afternoon,  May  21,  a  motion  of  Cooper  and  Bangs 
to  take  the  vote  on  this  resolution  by  ballot  was  lost,  and,  the 
vote  being  taken  in  the  usual  manner,  the  measure  of  Pierce 
and  Winans  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  64  to  58.!  Previ- 
ously an  amendment  had  been  accepted  that  the  vote  on  con- 
stitutional questions  in  both  General  and  Annual  Conferences 
should  be  taken  by  ballot.  Curiously  enough,  there  seems  to 
be  no  record,  in  the  Journal  of  1828,  of  the  action  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences  on  this  proposal  sent  down  to  them;  but 
since  the  proviso  then  required  the  joint  recommendation  of 
all  the  Annual  Conferences  to  secure  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment, there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  failure:  the  adverse  de- 
cision of  a  single  Annual  Conference  would  defeat  it. 

Twice,  however,  in  1820  and  1824  did  the  General  Con- 
ferences of  the  undivided  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  en- 
dorse the  principle  of  the  incompetency  of  the  General  Con- 
ference to  pass  finally  upon  the  constitutionality  of  its  own 
acts,  and  of  a  suspensive  veto  to  be  exercised  by  the  Bishops 
or  by  the  Annual  Conferences.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the 
measure  of  Messrs.  Pierce  and  Winans  adopted  in  1824  was 
a  distinct  advance  upon  the  action  of  1820.  It  still  permitted 
a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  General  Conference  to  pass  a 
measure  over  the  veto  of  the  Bishops.  But  in  case  the  meas- 
ure should  obtain  a  smaller  majority  than  two-thirds,  when 
returned  to  the  General  Conference  with  the  constitutional 
objections  of  the  Bishops,  if  the  Bishops  persisted  in  their 
objections,  the  proposed  legislation  was  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Annual  Conferences,  whose  decision  by  a  majority  vote 
should  be  final.  Thus  was  the  proper  tribunal  for  an  appeal 
at  last  partially  recognized.  Two-thirds  of  the  General 
Conference,  or  a  majority  in  the  Annual  Conferences,  could 
thus  overrule  the  Bishops.  For  the  Bishops,  being  a  party 
whose  interests  the  legislation  of  the  General  Conference 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  267.  I.  277. 


356 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


may  directly  and  materially  affect,  ought  not  to  be  allowed  an 
absolute  and  final  veto.  This  would  be  but  little  improve- 
ment upon  the  plan  of  allowing  the  General  Conference  to 
be  the  final  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  acts. 
But  the  Annual  Conferences,  though  like  the  Bishops  a  party 
in  interest,  affected  by  the  legislation  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, are  also  made  up  of  the  body  of  traveling  preachers, 
who  originated  both  the  Delegated  General  Conference  and 
its  constitution.  They,  therefore,  are  rightfully  the  ultimate 
judges  of  any  infringement  of  the  grant  of  power  which 
they  have  made  to  their  agent,  the  Delegated  General  Con- 
ference. But  the  Bishops  are  the  easy  and  natural  execu- 
tive agents  for  the  temporary  arrest  of  legislation  until  an 
appeal  can  be  taken  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  to  which 
a  veto  power,  in  the  proper  sense,  alone  belongs.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  this  want 
was  supplied  in  1870,  when  the  following  amendment  was 
made  to  the  constitution  by  the  General  Conference  voting 
160  yeas  to  4  nays,  and  the  Annual  Conferences  concurring 
by  2,024  yeas  to  9  nays: 

When  any  rule  or  regulation  is  adopted  by  the  General  Conference 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Bishops,  is  unconstitutional,  the  Bishops  may 
present  to  the  Conference  which  passed  said  rule  or  regulation  their  objec- 
tions thereto,  with  their  reasons,  in  writing,  and  if  the  General  Conference 
shall,  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  adhere  to  its  action  on  said  rule  or  regulation,  it 
shall  then  take  the  course  prescribed  for  altering  a  Restrictive  Rule. 

The  action  of  1824,  though  introduced  by  Messrs.  Pierce 
and  Winans,  did  not  originate  with  them.  Bishop  Paine — 
who  was  the  youngest  member  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1824 — has  preserved  a  document,  which  is  in  nearly  ver- 
batim agreement  with  the  actual  measure  passed,  and  which 
is  signed  by  W.  McKendree,  Enoch  George,  R.  R.  Roberts, 
Thomas  L.  Douglass,  and  Wm.  Capers.  Bishop  Paine 
wrote  from  his  notes,  made  at  the  time,  without  access  to 
the  Journals  of  the  General  Conference.*  His  memoranda 
and  the  official  Journal  agree  in  essentials.    He  says: 

*The  General  Conference  Journals  were  ordered  published  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1852;  the  oldest  edition  of  which  I  am  aware  has  the 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  357 


Friday,  May  20th  [21st],  another  question  of  importance  came  up,  called 
the  "  constitutional  test,"  the  object  of  which  was  to  prevent  hasty  action, 
violative  of  the  constitution,  by  giving  the  Bishops  a  qualified  veto,  with  an 
ultimate  reference  of  the  question  to  the  Annual  Conferences.  It  involved 
constitutional  questions  only.  The  Bishops,  anticipating  some  action  of  the 
kind,  had  agreed  to  unite,  and,  if  desired,  present  to  the  Conference  the  fol- 
lowing amendment  to  the  sixth  Article  of  the  "  limitations  and  restrictions," 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  in  1808,  signed  by  their  own  hands  and 
two  others. 

Then  follows,  with  few  and  unimportant  verbal  variations, 
a  copy  of  the  measure  which  the  General  Conference  actu- 
ally passed,  signed  by  the  three  bishops.  The  names  of 
Douglass  and  Capers  were  doubtless  added  to  anticipate  the 
objection  that  the  Bishops  had  no  constitutional  right  to  in- 
troduce measures  into  the  General  Conference,  but  it  was 
found  inexpedient  or  unnecessary  to  attach  the  signatures  of 
the  bishops  to  the  measure  as  presented  to  the  Conference ; 
and  Pierce  and  Winans,  for  some  reason  now  undiscover- 
able,  were  selected  to  introduce  it  instead  of  Douglass  and 
Capers.  "  Whether  the  subject  was  brought  into  Confer- 
ence," continues  Bishop  Paine,  "  by  the  presentation  of  this 
document,  or  by  another  series  of  resolutions,  the  writer  can- 
not say;  but  the  discussion  of  the  subject  was  upon  substan- 
tially a  similar,  if  not  an  identical,  presentation  of  the  ques- 
tion." That  this  was  the  case  we  know  from  the  published 
Journal  of  the  Conference.  Mr.  Paine  preserved  notes  of 
Mr.  Soule's  speech  in  the  debate  which  followed,  which  he 
cites,  and  thus  concludes  his  account: 

"  L.  McCombs  and  James  Smith  opposed  the  resolution 
at  considerable  length,  and  W.  Winans  repUed  in  one  of  the 
strongest,  most  analytical,  and  effective  speeches  ever  de- 
livered on  the  floor  of  the  General  Conference.  The  ques- 
tion was  carried  by  a  vote  of  64  to  58.  [The  Journal,  as  we 
have  seen,  gives  the  same  figures.]  A  heavy  load  was  lifted 
from  the  heart  of  the  senior  Bishop.  His  face  put  on  a  sub- 
dued smile,  and  he  breathed  freer."  * 

date  1855  on  its  title  page.    The  General  Conference  of  1854  appointed 
Bishop  Paine  Bishop  McKendree's  biographer. 
*  Paine's  McKendree,  II.  35-38. 


3S8  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


Toward  the  close  of  the  General  Conference,  the  Senior 
Superintendent  delivered  an  address,  which  was  stenograph- 
ically  reported  by  Mr.  Paine  and  the  Rev.  John  Summer- 
field.    On  this  point  Bishop  McKendree  said: 

At  the  commencement  of  the  present  General  Conference,  your  Bishops 
consulted  together,  to  devise  some  way  to  harmonize  the  brethren  and  the 
connection  at  large.  .  .  .  They  thought  they  saw  a  plan  open  and  they 
entered  in.  The  plan  was  to  invite  the  brethren  on  both  sides  to  vote  a  feace 
measure  which  should  meet  the  wishes  of  all.  In  order  to  guard  against  a 
recurrence  of  like  disagreements,  they  agreed  to  recommend  to  the  General 
Conference  a  constitutional  test  which  should  forever  settle  these  things.  I 
was  pleased  with  an  adjustment  which  is  calculated  to  heal  the  past  by  the 
peace  measure  proposed,  and  to  guard  against  a  recurrence  by  the  constitu- 
tional test.* 

Thus  Bishops  McKendree,  George,  and  Roberts — and, 
of  course.  Bishop  Soule  and,  probably.  Bishop  Hedding, 
both  of  whom  were  elected  and  ordained  at  this  time — agreed 
with  the  General  Conference  of  1824  that  the  General  Con- 
ference itself  is  not  the  proper  tribunal  to  pass  final  judg- 
ment on  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  proceedings,  but  that 
this  function  should  be  exercised,  primarily  and  for  purposes 
of  temporary  arrest,  by  the  Bishops,  and  ultimately,  in  a 
given  contingency,  by  the  Annual  Conferences  themselves. 
In  an  able  article  on  the  "  Rights  of  a  General  Conference 
President,"  Bishop  S.  M.  Merrill  announces  and  advocates 
principles,  which  would  seem  to  fall  but  little  short  of  those 
of  Bishop  McKendree,  and  which,  if  followed  to  their  re- 
sults, must  lead  to  something  like  the  veto  law  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South.    Bishop  Merrill  says: 

There  are,  however,  some  laws  in  the  Church  which  the  General  Confer- 
ence did  not  make,  and  which  it  cannot  unmake  or  modify.  When  these 
are  involved,  what  is  the  duty  of  the  Bishop?  The  rule  which  inhibits  him 
as  president  of  the  law-making  body  from  deciding  questions  of  law  can- 
not apply  where  a  proposed  action  appears  to  him  to  be  an  infringement  of 
the  constitution.  Is  he  powerless  to  arrest  such  proposed  action.''  Must  he 
become  a  party  to  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  law.'  Has  he  no  right  to 
interpose  his  own  judgment,  so  far,  at  least,  as  to  stay  proceedings  till  the 
question  of  constitutionality  is  decided.'  Suppose  he  is  not  the  final  author- 
ity in  determining  the  question,  may  he  not  demand  a  formal  investigation 
and  decision  before  he  is  required  to  submit  the  matter  to  a  vote  in  the 


""Paine's  McKendree,  II.  44,  45. 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1S20.  359 

General  Conference?  ....  How  else  can  the  proper  distinction  be 
made  between  the  action  of  a  Bishop  in  determining  the  constitutionality  of 
a  proposed  measure  and  determining  a  point  of  order  under  the  rules.'  In 
the  latter  case  the  General  Conference  is  supreme.  Its  dictum  is  final.  In 
the  former  case  it  exercises  a  power  given  to  it  tacitly  and  by  usage,  or 
taken  in  the  absence  of  any  contrary  provision — a  power  which  may  be  in- 
voked to  touch  things  most  vital  in  Methodism,  and  which  should  never  be 
exercised  except  in  the  most  formal  and  deliberate  manner.  It  is  the  high- 
est judicial  power  with  which  the  body  is  invested,  if  indeed  it  be  invested 
with  such  power  at  all,  which  it  is  not  except  by  implication.  It  decides  ap- 
peals from  the  decision  of  the  chair  on  questions  of  order  by  a  majority 
vote,  without  debate.  Is  it  seemly  that  it  should,  or  will  it  claim  the  right  to, 
pass  upon  the  gravest  constitutional  problems  in  the  same  way  }  .  .  .  Suppose 
a  motion  is  made  which  plainly  contravenes  a  restrictive  rule.  In  the  hurry 
or  excitement  of  the  hour  the  members  of  the  body  do  not  catch  the  bear- 
ing of  the  motion  in  that  respect,  and  no  point  of  order  is  raised.  Must  the 
president  entertain  the  motion,  knowing  it  to  be  unlawful.''  He  would  be 
derelict  of  duty  if  he  saw  that  it^was  in  conflict  with  the  rules  of  order  and 
did  not  promptly  refuse  to  entertain  it.  Must  he  be  less  watchful  in  guard- 
ing the  constitution  than  in  upholding  the  rules  of  order.''  Is  his  power 
complete  in  the  less  important  case,  and  utterly  wanting  in  the  more  impor- 
tant.' But  suppose  he  does  not  rule  the  motion  out  on  constitutional 
grounds,  but  simply  hesitates,  and  calls  the  attention  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence to  his  conviction,  and  waits  for  the  motion  to  be  withdrawn ;  is  not  this 
debating  the  subject,  and  throwing  the  weight  of  his  influence  on  one  side 
as  against  the  other,  and  has  he  any  more  right  to  debate  than  he  has  to  rule 
Turn  the  matter  over  and  look  at  it  on  every  side,  and  each  additional  view 
■will  strengthen  the  conviction  that  a  motion  to  do  an  unlawful  thing  is  nev- 
er in  order  in  the  General  Conference,  and  that  the  president,  who  is  bound 
to  maintain  the  rules  of  order,  is  also  bound,  by  the  nature  of  his  office  as  a 
Bishop  in  the  Church,  to  protect  the  constitution  from  infraction  by  refus- 
ing to  entertain  a  motion  that  he  believes  to  be  unlawful  under  that  instru- 
ment. His  obligation  in  this  regard  is  as  high  as  his  obligation  to  preside 
and  enforce  the  rules  of  order.* 

It  would  be  wrong  to  attribute  to  Bishop  Merrill  any  sen- 
timents which  he  does  not  distinctly  avow,  but  it  hardly  re- 
quires reading  between  the  lines,  to  see  that  he  has  very 
grave  doubts  about  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to 
pass  finally  upon  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  acts,  if  not 
a  reasoned  conviction  that  it  has  no  such  prerogative.  He 
describes  it  as  "  a  power  given  to  it  tacitly  and  by  usage;" 
as  ^Haken  in  the  absence  of  any  contrary  provision;"  as 
"  the  highest  judicial  power  with  which  the  body  is  invested, 


*Art.  in  New  York  Christian  Advocate,  (supplement)  March  24,  1892. 


360  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


if  indeed  it  be  invested  with  such  power  at  all,  which  it  is 
not  except  by  implication."  Here  is  a  clear  and  robust  le- 
gal intellect,  which  surely  in  1820  and  1824  must  have  plant- 
ed itself  on  the  ground  occupied  by  McKendree  and  Soule. 
Must  a  bishop  "  become  a  party  to  a  violation  of  the  funda- 
mental law?"  asks  Bishop  Merrill,  and  answers  his  own 
question:  "The  president,  who  is  bound  to  maintain  the 
rules  of  order,  is  also  bound,  by  the  nature  of  his  office  as  a 
Bishop  in  the  Church,  to  protect  the  constitution  from  in- 
fraction by  refusing  to  entertain  a  motion  that  he  believes  to 
be  unlawful  under  that  instrument."  Rather  than  "become 
a  party  to  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  law,"  as  he  believed 
the  act  of  the  General  Conference  to  be,  Joshua  Soule,  in 
1820,  after  election,  and  the  refusal  of  his  resignation,  de- 
clined to  be  ordained  a  bishop.  "While  I  am  firmly  bound, 
by  virtue  of  my  office,  to  see  that  all  the  rules  are  properly 
enforced,"  said  William  McKendree,  "  I  am  equally  bound 
to  prevent  the  imposition  of  that  which  is  not  properly  rule." 
Bishop  McKendree  and  Bishop  Merrill  are  one  in  the  prin- 
ciple they  adopt,  but  differ  in  the  degree  of  its  appHcation. 
Bishop  Merrill  believes  it  to  be  the  duty  of  a  General  Con- 
ference President  to  arrest  legislation  judged  to  be  unconsti- 
tutional and  to  appeal  formally  to  the  Judiciary  Committee 
as  now  constituted  in  the  General  Conference  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church.  But  the  Committee  can  possess  no 
power  which  does  not  inhere  in  the  body  which  institutes  it, 
and  we  already  know  Bishop  Merrill's  opinion  of  the  pow- 
ers of  the  General  Conference  in  this  regard.  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree, in  the  light  of  the  origin  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence and  its  Constitution,  and  sustained  by  express  precedent 
in  Bishop  Asbury's  time,  believed  it  to  be  the  duty  of  a  Su- 
perintendent to  carry  his  appeal  to  the  tribunal  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences. 

But  if  it  be  the  duty  of  the  Bishop  who  happens  to  be  in 
the  chair  on  a  given  day  of  the  General  Conference  session 
to  arrest  temporarily  any  measure  which  he  believes  to  be 
unconstitutional,  how  much  more  is  it  the  duty  of  the  whole 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  361 


College  of  Bishops,  or  a  majority  of  them,  to  signify  to  the 
General  Conference  their  objections  to  pending  legislation 
which  they  are  convinced  is  an  infringement  of  the  Constitu- 
tion ?  And,  if  it  be  allowed  that  the  General  Conference  is 
not  the  proper  tribunal  to  pass  finally  upon  such  a  protest  of 
the  Bishops,  to  what  tribunal  can  it  go  for  decision,  save 
that  of  the  Annual  Conferences?  Thus  the  constitutional 
provision  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  on 
this  point,  is  seen  to  be  the  legal,  logical,  and  necessary  re- 
sult of  the  mutual  relations  of  the  Delegated  General  Con- 
ference, the  Bishops,  and  the  Annual  Conferences.  This  is 
after  all  no  Episcopal  veto  power,  in  the  proper  sense,  but  a 
simple  and  natural  arrangement  by  which  the  executive  offi- 
cers of  the  Church  may  take  the  sense  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences on  an  alleged  unconstitutional  exercise  of  powers 
by  their  agent,  the  Delegated  General  Conference. 

Thus,  in  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  the  Bishops  are  present  to  guard  the 
constitution  against  infraction  in  any  concrete  instance  of 
specific  legislation.  The  principle  of  the  procedure  by  which 
a  delegated  body  of  limited  powers  is  assumed  to  be  com- 
petent in  any  final  way  to  fix  the  limits  and  meaning  of  a  grant 
of  power  made  to  it  by  others — in  this  case  the  body  of  travel- 
ing preachers — is  dangerous,  anomalous,  and,  in  civil  affairs, 
without  precedent.  This  power  of  definition  and  interpreta- 
tion belongs  alone  to  the  Annual  Conferences  which,  in  a  very 
vital  sense,  created  the  General  Conference  to  act  as  their 
agent,  with  instructions.  If  any  doubt  arises  as  to  the  pur- 
port of  these  instructions,  the  principal,  not  the  agent,  must 
decide  their  meaning.  Moreover,  among  other  purposes, 
constitutions  are  constructed  for  the  protection  of  minorities. 
But,  if  a  majority  of  the  General  Conference  may  both  de- 
fine and  interpret  the  constitution,  then  are  not  only  the  ab- 
sent body  of  elders,  but  also  the  minority  of  representatives 
present,  helpless.  Much  less  could  the  principle  be  admit- 
ted that  one  General  Conference,  of  equal  powers,  and  of 
presumably  equal  intelligence,  could  sit  in  judgment  upon 


362  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  constitutionality  of  the  acts  of  a  preceding  General  Con- 
ference; for  in  that  case,  since  each  constitutional  decision 
could  be  opened  afresh  every  four  years,  certainty  and  final- 
ity would  never  be  reached. 

All  these  dangers  and  evils  are  avoided  by  the  constitu- 
tional provision  inserted  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  by  the  joint  authority  of  the  Gen- 
eral and  Annual  Conferences.  When  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1808  adjourned,  it  left  in  existence  the  body  of  trav- 
eling preachers,  distributed  in  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences; the  Bishops,  constitutionally  protected  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  all  the  powers  they  had  hitherto  exercised  according 
to  "the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency ;  " 
and  the  plan  for  a  Delegated  General  Conference,  ordained 
by  the  body  of  traveling  preachers  in  General  Conference 
assembled,  as  a  charter  or  constitution  for  their  agent,  the 
Delegated  General  Conference.  These  three  things,  the 
first  Delegated  General  Conference  of  181 2  found  in  exist- 
ence when  it  assembled.  The  Bishops,  being  a  distinct 
branch  of  the  government,  coeval  with  the  existence  of  the 
Church,  antedating  the  Delegated  General  Conference  and 
its  constitution  by  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  in  that  con- 
stitution protected  by  a  restrictive  rule  emanating  from  the 
body  of  elders  and  giving  permanency  and  independence  to 
their  office  as  it  existed  from  the  beginning,  are  the  natural 
and  only  efficient  guardians  of  the  rights  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences against  General  Conference  encroachment. 

If  it  be  objected  that  this  power  lodged  in„the  bishops  is 
unwise  or  unsafe,  the  reply  is:  (i)  this  provision  is  the  le- 
gitimate if  not  the  necessary  development  of  the  earhest 
principles  manifest  in  the  working  of  our  Church  govern- 
ment, and  corresponds  with  the  best  analogies  of  civil  gov- 
ernment, which  separates  legislative  and  judicial  functions; 
(2)  while  our  state  and  national  Constitutions  usually  lodge 
a  veto  power  in  one  man,  the  chief  executive,  this  provision 
lodges  it  in  a  body  of  picked  men  larger  than  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States;  (3)  while  our  state  and  national 


The  Third  Delegated  General  Conference,  1820.  363 


executives  can  use  the  veto  power  on  any  grounds  satisfac- 
tory to  themselves,  the  bishops  can  veto  only  upon  the  sole 
ground  of  constitutional  invalidity;  (4)  since  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  is 
composed  of  equal  numbers  of  ministers  and  laymen,  who 
may  vote  separately  upon  a  proper  call,  this  veto  power, 
which  gives  the  bishops  to  this  extent  participation  in  legis- 
lation, makes  it  necessary  for  a  proposed  enactment  whose 
constitutionality  is  open  to  question  to  be  subjected  to  the 
rigid  scrutiny  of  three  distinct  houses,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
final  tribunal  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  (5)  this  provi- 
sion is,  strictly,  not  an  absolute  episcopal  veto  power,  but  a 
proper  arrangement  for  carrying  an  appeal  to  the  court  of 
last  resort,  the  tribunal  of  the  Annual  Conferences. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 


THE  QUADRENNIUM,  182O-1824:  THE  CONTRASTED  GOVERN- 
MENTS OF  THE  TWO  EPISCOPAL  METHODISMS. 

BISHOP  McKendree  continued  firm  in  his  purpose  to  lay 
his  address  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  suspended 
resolutions  before  the  Annual  Conferences.  He  justified  his 
course  in  part  by  the  following  precedent: 

The  Bishops  formed  the  Genesee  Conference  in  1809.  In  the  Virginia 
Conference  there  was  an  objection  to  this  act,  being,  as  it  was  supposed,  un- 
constitutional. The  Bishops  [Asbury  and  McKendree]  submitted  the  ques- 
tion to  the  Annual  Conferences.  They  acted  upon  it  as  a  proper  subject  of 
their  decision,  and  confirmed  the  act  of  the  Bishops.  By  this  act,  the  Bish- 
ops and  the  Annual  Conferences  tacitly  declared  the  Annual  Conferences 
to  be  the  proper  judges  of  constitutional  questions;  and  the  senior  Bishop  is 
fully  persuaded  that,  conformably  to  the  genius  of  our  government,  all 
such  cases  as  cannot  be  otherwise  adjusted  ought  to  be  submitted  to  their 
decision  until  otherwise  provided  for  by  the  same  authority  on  which  the 
present  General  Conference  depends  for  its  existence.* 

The  General  Conference  of  1812  approved  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Bishops  in  approving  the  legality  of  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Genesee  Conference,  for  which  the  previ- 
ous General  Conference  had  not  provided.  Of  his  motives 
and  intentions  in  preparing  and  submitting  the  address  to  the 
Annual  Conferences,  Bishop  McKendree  has  left  a  simple 
statement: 

I  am  fully  persuaded  that  confidence,  peace,  and  harmony  among  the 
preachers  and  people,  and  the  perpetuity  of  our  itinerant  system  now  in  suc- 
cessful operation,  very  much  depend  upon  the  confidence  reposed  in  the 
delegated  General  Conference  as  to  their  intention  to  preserve  the  constitu- 
tion inviolate,  and  regard  it  as  their  rule  of  conduct.  My  opposition  to  the 
"peace-measure  resolutions,"  as  they  were  called,  arose  from  a  conviction 
that  they  were  a  violation  of  the  constitution,  and  contravened  a  principle 
destructive  of  the  "  limitations  and  restrictions  "  imposed  on  the  delegated 
Conference;  and  as  these  restrictions  were  imposed  by  the  traveling  preach- 
ers collectively,  and  from  whom  the  delegated  body  derived  its  being  and 
all  its  powers,  I  considered  them  the  proper  judges  of  the  constitutionality 


*McKendree's  Journal,  cited  by  Paine,  I.  426. 

(364) 


The  ^uadrennium,  i8 20-1824.  365 


of  their  acts.  Influenced  by  these  views,  and  a  hope  of  adjusting  our  diffi- 
culties and  harmonizing  the  traveling  preachers,  an  address  to  the  Annual 
Conferences  was  drawn  up,  in  which  I  gave  my  reasons  for  believing  the 
suspended  resolutions  to  be  unconstitutional ;  intending,  if  a  majority  of  the 
Annual  Conferences  were  of  a  different  opinion,  to  submit  to  their  judg- 
ment as  a  legal  decision,  and  upon  that  authority  admit,  recommend,  and 
act  according  to  the  provisions  of  those  resolutions;  but  in  the  event  that 
my  opinion  should  be  confirmed,  to  advise  the  Conferences  to  recommend 
their  adoption  by  the  ensuing  General  Conference,  and  thereby  introduce 
them  conformably  to  the  constitution.* 

Nevertheless  Mr.  Soule  entertained  fears  as  to  the  results 
of  the  course  adopted  by  Bishop  McKendree,  and  expressed 
his  views  to  the  Senior  Bishop.  His  letter  lies  before  me, 
and  as  it  has  not  heretofore  been  published,  I  shall  here  in- 
sert it.  It  is  dated  "  New  York,  6  May,  182 1."  After  ac- 
knowledging the  receipt  of  letters  from  the  Bishop,  and  ex- 
plaining his  delay,  Mr.  Soule  continues: 

On  proposing  and  recommending  to  the  Annual  Conference?  the  adop- 
tion of  the  suspended  resolutions  of  the  General  Conference,  I  have  my 
doubts  and  fears.  I  am  decidedly  of  your  opinion  that,  although  the  resolu- 
tions are  no  improvement  of  our  system,  but  rather  tend  to  enfeeble  its  en- 
ergies, yet,  if  no  further  encroachments  are  made  upon  the  executive  authority, 
the  government  may  be  administered,  under  the  provisions  of  those  resolu- 
tions. And  if  I  had  any  sufficient  security,  that  the  adoption  of  those  resolu- 
tions, in  constitutional  order,  would  be  the  means  of  reconciliation,  and  lay  the 
foundation  for  a  permanent  peace,  I  would  cordially  recommend  them  for 
such  adoption.  But  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  conceive  that  those  brethren 
who,  for  so  many  years,  have  contested  the  radical  principles  of  the  govern- 
memt,  will  rest  satisfied  while  the  essential  features  of  Episcopacy  remain. 
And  I  am  fully  persuaded,  that  one  change  will  be  urged  as  a  ground,  plead 
as  a  precedent,  and  used  as  an  auxiliary,  to  promote  another.  If  the  course 
which  you  propose  is  pursued,  it  follows  that  each  Conference  must  act,  in 
recommending  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions,  upon  the  ground  that  they 
are  unconstitutional.  I  think  it  is  a  fair  presumption  that  some  of  the  Con- 
ferences will  not  act  on  this  ground.  But  my  principal  fears  are  the  effect 
which  the  measure  may  have  on  the  membership.  The  measures  of  the  last 
General  Conference  have  given  many  of  our  people  great  alarm.  From  the 
time  the  Constitution  was  formed,  in  which  the  character  of  the  government 
was  fixed,  and  the  rights  of  the  members,  private  and  official,  secured,  all 
seem  to  have  settled  down  in  peace  and  quietude  and  confidence.  It  seemed 
like  the  return  of  a  calm  after  a  storm;  and  general  joy  prevailed  under  the 
conviction  that  we  had  arrived  to  that  permanent  state  of  things  in  which 
all  might  rest.  No  alteration  of  the  government  was  expected  or  desired, 
nor  did  an  apprehension  prevail  that  any  new  burdens  would  be  imposed,  or 


'McKendr«e's  Journal,  cited  by  Paine,  I.  439,  440. 


366 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


terms  of  communion  established.  Under  these  assurances,  what  must  have 
been  the  surprise  when  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  were 
made  public?  A  transfer  of  important  and  long  established  prerogatives 
from  one  official  department  to  another,  and  even  doubts  suggested  as  to  the 
validity  of  the  Constitution  itself!  From  this  view  of  the  subject,  I  am  fully 
convinced  that  the  resolutions  can  never  go  into  operation  with  safety  to  the 
peace  of  the  Church  on  any  other  ground  but  that  which  you  propose;  and, 
all  things  considered,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  your  course  is  the  best  and 
safest  which  can  be  pursued.  If  I  do  not  see  you  in  New  York,  I  will  avail 
myself  of  the  earliest  opportunity,  after  our  Conference,  to  communicate 
more  fully  on  the  subject.* 

Accordingly  "To  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  commencing  with  the  Ohio  Confer- 
ence, to  be  held  in  Lebanon,  September  6,  1821,"  the  senior 
Bishop  took  his  appeal.  After  a  brief,  but  pertinent,  histor- 
ical introduction,  he  states  his  constitutional  objections  in 
three  propositions: 

1.  It  would  effectually  transfer  the  executive  authority  from  the  Bishops 
to  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  thereby  do  away  that  form  of  Episcopacy 
and  itinerant  General  Superintendency  which  is  recognized  in  our  Form  of 
Discipline,  and  confirmed  in  the  third  Article  of  the  Constitution. 

2.  By  doing  away  the  present  effective  General  .Superintendency,  our  itin- 
erant plan  of  preaching  the  gospel  would  be  greatly  injured,  if  not  entirely 
destroyed. 

3.  In  point  of  law,  it  would  effectually  divest  the  members  of  our  Church 
of  all  constitutional  security  for  their  rights,  and  reduce  them  to  the  neces- 
sity of  depending  entirely  on  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  the  General  Con- 
ference for  those  inestimable  blessings. 

A  summary  of  Bishop  McKendree's  argument  on  the  first 
head  has  been  previously  presented.!  On  the  second  point 
he  says  in  part: 

Could  all  our  traveling  preachers  attend  one  Annual  Conference,  to  ac- 
count for  their  administration,  and  receive  their  appointments  and  instruc- 
tions, the  itinerant  plan  might  go  on  and  prosper  in  America  as  it  does  in 
England,  without  either  General  Conference  or  General  Superintendency. 
But  our  situation  is  widely  different  from  theirs.  Our  work  extends  over 
more  than  twenty  States,  and  has  to  encounter  difficulties  arising  from  the 
civil  regulations  of  different  State  and  Territorial  governments.  We  are  di- 
vided into  twelve  Annual  Conferences.  These  are  all  equal  in  power,  and 
independent  of  each  other,  no  one  having  power  to  impose  laws  on  another. 

*  Extract  from  original  letter  in  the  author's  possession.  The  reply  to  Mr.  Soule's  letter, 
as  well  as  the  one  to  which  it  was  a  reply,  may  be  seen  in  Paine's  McEendree,  II.  371-376. 
The  italics  in  this  and  preceding  letters  of  Mr.  Soule's  are  his  own. 

tSee  above,  pp.  343,  344. 


The  .^uadrennium,  1 8 20-1 824.. 


367 


The  jurisdiction  of  each  Annual  Conference  is  restricted  to  its  own  bounds, 
and  each  Presiding  Elder  to  his  own  District.  Out  of  this  state  of  things 
aris'Ss  the  necessity  of  a  General  Conference  to  make  rules  or  laws  for  the 
united  Annual  Conferences,  and  of  a  General  Superintendency  to  enforce 
those  rules;  to  preserve  a  uniform  administration  of  discipline;  to  preserve 
the  union  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences;  and  by  removing  preachers 
from  District  to  District,  and  from  Conference  to  Conference,  (which  no 
Annual  Conference  nor  Presiding  Elder  can  do,)  perpetuate  and  extend  mis- 
sionary labors  for  the  benefit  of  increasing  thousands,  who  look  unto  us  as 
teachers  sent  of  God.  Such  is  our  situation  in  this  country  that  our  itiner- 
ant system  can  no  more  do  without  an  effective  General  Superintendency, 
sufficiently  under  the  control  of  the  General  Conference,  than  they  can  with- 
out the  General  Conference  itself.  It  [the  General  Superintendency]  was, 
therefore,  ratified  by  the  constitution,  after  twenty-four  years'  experience  in 
proof  of  its  utility  and  necessity. 

Under  the  third  proposition,  is  included  this  argument: 

For  it  requires  no  more  power  to  change  our  articles  of  religion,  erect 
new  standards  of  doctrine,  and  do  away  the  rights  of  preachers  and  mem- 
bers, than  to  do  away  our  General  Superintendency ;  and,  if  the  delegated 
General  Conference  is  not  bound  by  these  restrictions,  then  their  power  is 
undefined  and  unlimited— they  may  make  what  changes  they  please,  and 
there  can  be  no  legal  redress — no  constitutional  guarantee  for  our  rights  and 
privileges.  Your  Superintendent  most  cordially  disapproves  of  such  a  state 
of  things,  and  will  do  nothing  which  he  believes  will  produce  it,  because  he 
conceives  it  would  go  to  deprive  both  preachers  and  members  of  constitution- 
al security,  and  reduce  them  to  the  necessity  of  relying  solely  on  the  Gener- 
al Conference  for  all  their  rights  and  privileges.  .  .  .  Since  that  memo- 
rable era  [1808]  in  Methodism,  your  Superintendent  conceives  the  General 
Conference  to  be  bound  as  sacredly  to  observe  all  those  restrictions,  (as  the 
laws  by  which  their  proceedings  are  to  be  tested,)  as  each  member  of  the 
Church  is  bound  to  submit  to  the  examination  of  his  conduct,  according  to  the 
legitimate  rules  enacted  by  said  Conference,  because  the  restrictions  arise 
from  the  same  source,  and  are  supported  by  the  same  authority,  which  gave 
existence  to  the  delegated  General  Conference,  and  validity  to  their  rules 
and  regulations;  consequently,  they  must  both  stand  or  fall  together. 

This  notable  address,  one  of  the  most  important  docu- 
ments of  our  Constitutional  history,  concludes  with  this 
language : 

From  the  preachers  collectively  both  the  General  Conference  and  General 
Superintendents  derive  their  powers;  and  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  joint- 
ly, is  reserved  the  power  of  recommending  a  change  in  our  constitution. 
To  you,  therefore,  your  Superintendent  not  only  submits  the  case,  but  he 
would  advise  you  to  adopt  such  measures  as  you  in  your  judgment  may 
deem  most  prudent,  by  which  to  recognize  the  adoption  of  the  change  pro- 
posed in  the  resolutions,  conformably  to  the  provision  in  the  sixth  Article  of 


368 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  Constitution.  Not  that  he  believes  the  change  would  be  an  improve- 
ment of  our  system  of  government,  or  that  it  would  fully  answer  the  expec- 
tations of  its  advocates,  but  as  an  accommodating  measure,  on  the  utility  of 
which  men  equally  wise  and  good  may,  in  some  degree,  differ  in  opinion. 
Your  Superintendent  is,  therefore,  disposed  to  submit  his  opinion  for  the 
harmony  of  the  body,  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  his  duty  and  obligations  to 
the  Church.  And,  as  a  majority  of  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  last  Gener- 
al Conference,  after  having  received  assurances  that  it  would  be  satisfactory, 
and  put  the  controverted  subject  to  rest,  voted  in  favor  of  the  resolutions, 
they  tacitly  say,  all  things  considered,  the  change  is  at  least  prudentially 
necessary.  To  this  decision  all  due  deference  is  paid.  In  the  opinion  of 
your  Superintendent,  no  sacrifice  for  peace  and  harmony,  which  can  be 
made  consistently  with  the  constitution  and  preservation  of  our  general  itin- 
erant plan  of  preaching  the  gospel,  is  too  great.  With  your  recommenda- 
tions and  instructions,  your  representatives  in  General  Conference  may  act 
as  they  may  judge  most  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  his  Church. 
Thus  introduced,  the  case  would  commend  and  establish  the  constitution, 
and  form  an  effectual  barrier  against  any  future  infringement  of  that  bul- 
wark of  our  rights  and  liberties.* 

Of  the  twelve  Annual  Conferences  into  which  the  Church 
was  then  divided,  seven  "  judged  the  suspended  resolutions 
unconstitutional  "  and  yet  "  authorized  the  ensuing  General 
Conference,  as  far  as  they  could  do  so,  to  adopt  them  with- 
out alteration."  This  statement  of  Bishop  McKendree's  is 
sufficiently  exact:  six  of  the  Conferences  which  pronounced 
the  resolutions  unconstitutional,  nevertheless  recommended 
their  adoption;  the  seventh,  the  South  Carolina,  while  de- 
clining to  recommend,  did  not  pronounce  against  their  adop- 
tion. "But  the  five  other  Conferences,"  continues  the 
Bishop,  "in  which  the  steady  friends  and  most  powerful 
advocates  of  the  proposed  change  were  found,  refused  to 
act  on  the  address,  and  thereby  prevented  its  adoption  e., 
the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  for  the  proposed  change, 
which  required  the  assent  of  all  the  Conferences]  in  a  con- 
stitutional way,  and,  of  course,  set  in  for  another  vigorous 
contest  at  the  next  General  Conference.  In  this  way  my 
hope  of  a  safe  and  peaceable  adjustment  of  our  difficulties, 
and  the  prevention  of  a  dangerous,  probable  schism  in  the 
Church  was  frustrated,  and  the  way  for  the  spread  of  the 
schism  already  commenced  was  made  more  easy." 


*The  entire  address  is  given  in  Paine's  McKendree,  I.  444-458. 


The  ^uadrcnnium,  1820-18 24.  369 


The  seven  Conferences  which  pronounced  the  proposed 
change  unconstitutional,  but,  on  the  recommendation  of 
Bishop  McKendree,  interposed  no  barrier,  if  made  in  a  con- 
stitutional way,  were  the  southern  and  western  bodies,  name- 
ly, the  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Tennessee,  INIississippi, 
South  Carolina,  and  Virginia  Conferences.  The  five  Con- 
ferences which,  in  effect,  refused  to  accept  their  own  meas- 
ure as  a  constitutional  change,  were  the  New  England,  New 
York,  Genesee,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore.  They  declined 
to  acknowledge  the  powerlessness  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence to  act  alone  in  the  premises,  and  tacitly  avowed  their 
determination  to  accept  the  change,  if  at  all,  only  on  their 
own  terms,  despite  the  constitutional  scruples  of  the  Senior 
Bishop  and  a  majority  of  the  Conferences.  Thus  the  issue 
was  joined  on  the  naked  constitutional  principle  alone. 
Heavy  and  bitter  attacks  were  delivered  upon  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree— that  "  he  would  not  submit  to  the  authority  of  the 
General  Conference,"  etc.  He  had  been  willing,  however, 
though  he  regarded  the  measure  as  impolitic,  unconstitution- 
al, and  revolutionary,  to  recommend  its  adoption,  provided 
that  adoption  was  reached  in  a  constitutional  way.  He  did 
this  (i)  to  harmonize  the  episcopacy,  (2)  to  save  the  consti- 
tution, and  secure  a  fresh  committal  to  the  inviolability  of 
that  instrument,  and  (3)  to  pacify  the  sadly  divided  Church. 
Bishop  Roberts  admitted  the  "  infringement  of  the  constitu- 
tion," but  was  willing  for  the  measure  to  go  into  effect  as  an 
act  of  the  General  Conference.  Bishop  George,  while  with- 
holding his  opinion  on  the  constitutional  point,  evidently  de- 
sired the  adoption  of  the  change.  "  To  secure  harmony  in 
the  episcopacy,  maintain  the  authority  of  the  constitution, 
and,  by  yielding  his  preference  as  to  the  mode  of  admin- 
istering the  polity  of  the  Church,  obtain  a  fresh  indorse- 
ment of  the  Constitution,  and  thus  restore  peace  without  the 
sacrifice  of  a  vital  principle,"  concludes  McKendree's  biogra- 
pher, "  were  certainly  his  objects."  In  the  collection  of  un- 
pubHshed  papers,  described  in  the  preface  of  this  work,  I  find 
an  official  transcript  from  the  Journal  of  the  Philadelphia  Con- 
24 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


ference,  made  by  the  Secretary  "  for  Bishop  McKendree," 
and  endorsed  in  the  Bishop's  handwriting,  "  Resolutions 
of  the  Philadelphia  Conference  on  the  Address."  As  it  hap- 
pens that  the  action  of  the  South  CaroHna  Conference  is  also 
among  these  unpublished  documents,  I  shall  insert  the  two 
as  instructive  examples  of  the  radically  opposed  views  of  the 
Northeastern  and  Southwestern  Conferences  on  this  ques- 
tion.   The  Philadelphia  action  was  as  follows : 

Ezekiel  Cooper  moved  and  Joseph  Osborne  seconded,  the  following  res- 
olutions: 

Whereas  Bishop  McKendree,  in  his  communication  to  this  Conference 
has  pronounced  that  the  resolutions  of  the  last  General  Conference  relative 
to  the  election  of  presiding  elders,  are,  in  his  belief,  an  infringement  on  the 
constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  wherefore 

Resolved,  i.  That  in  the  opinion  and  full  conviction  of  this  Conference, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  said  resolutions  that  makes  any  infringement  on  the 
constitution  or  restrictive  regulations  ofour  Church.    Carried  unanimously. 

Resolved,  [2.]  That  the  restrictive  resolutions  do  not  in  our  opinion  pro- 
hibit or  restrict  any  changes,  alterations  or  new  modifications  of  the  episco- 
pal powers  or  duties,  provided  such  changes  do  not  do  away  episcopacy  or  de- 
stroy the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency .  Carried  unanimously. 

True  copy  from  the  Journal.  L.  Lawrenson,  Secretary. 

May  16,  1822.':" 

Thus  Ezekiel  Cooper,  the  champion  of  a  diocesan  episco- 
pacy and  of  an  elective  presiding  eldership  in  1808,  whose 
proposed  restrictive  rule  on  this  subject  was  at  the  time  re- 
jected for  Joshua  Soule's,  carried  the  Philadelphia  Confer- 
ence unanimously  in  1822  for  the  constitutionality  of  an 
elective  presiding  eldership. 

Lewis  Myers,  writing  to  Joshua  Soule,  from  Charleston, 
March  7,  1822,  says: 

The  last  General  Conference's  two  resolutions  are  taking  the  rounds. 
Bishop  M.  has  delivered  us  his  address  on  the  subject.  We  have  acted  on  it. 
The  identical  words,  verbatim,  I  cannot  rehearse.  The  substance  is  as  follows: 

Resolved,  i.  That  in  our  judgment  the  two  resolutions  relative  to  Presid- 
ing elders,  etc.,  passed  at  the  last  General  Conference  and  suspended  to  the 
next,  are  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
established  by  the  General  Conference  of  1808. 

2.  That  this  Conference  views  with  sentiments  of  gratitude,  the  firm  and 
prudent  stand  which  our  Senior  Bishop  made  to  maintain  inviolate  the  said 
constitution. 


♦Original  document  in  possession  of  the  author. 


The  ^uadrcnnium,  1820-1824,  371 


3.  That  much  ought  to  be  yielded  for  the  sake  of  peace;  but  our  minds 
are  not  yet  prepared  to  decide  on  this  all-important  point. 

4.  That  Bishop  M.  be  respectfully  requested  to  grant  a  copy  of  his  address 
to  be  entered  into  our  Journals. 

"The  second  and  third,"  continues  Mr.  Myers,  "ap- 
peared seriously  to  affect  our  good  old  Bishop  George's 
mind.  He  appeared  depressed.  He  met  several  of  us  and 
proposed  that  we  should  make  some  alterations,  so  as  to  rec- 
ommend such  a  change  in  the  constitution  as  would  embrace 
the  resolutions:  we  remained  as  we  were.  I  could  wish  he 
had  left  us  with  a  more  satisfied  mind.  As  to  the  first  reso- 
lution, as  far  as  I  can  judge,  the  minds  of  the  Conference 
are  united."  * 

Thus,  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  the  division  of 
the  Church,  the  Northeast  and  Southwest  were  solidly  and 
determinedly  arrayed  against  each  other  on  a  question  purely 
constitutional,  affecting  the  principles  of  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment alone.  That  sectional  differences,  particularly  the 
contrast  between  the  civil  institutions  of  the  northern  and 
southern  portions  of  the  Union,  afterwards  largely  entered, 
directly  and  indirectly,  into  the  estrangement  of  the  two 
wings  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  must  be  allowed,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  by  any  one  enjoying  a  tolerable  acquaintance  with 
the  principles  of  human  nature  and  the  events  recorded  on 
the  broad  page  of  history.  But  this  fact  must  not  blind  us 
to  an  antecedent  difference,  which  radically  divided  the 
northern  and  southern  sections  of  the  Church  on  the  nature 
of  our  ecclesiastical  government,  and  particularly  on  the 
powers  which  the  Delegated  General  Conference  was  enti- 
tled to  exercise  under  the  constitution  which  had  been  given 
to  it.  In  our  Church,  as  in  our  nation,  the  division  was 
along  the  line  of  strict  construction  of  the  powers  delegated 
by  the  constitution,  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  loose  and  broad 
interpretation  of  those  powers,  on  the  other.    These  differ- 

*  Original  letter  in  possession  of  the  author.  The  action  of  the  Kentucky 
and  Ohio  Conferences,  which,  though  pronouncing  them  unconstitutional, 
recommend  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions,  may  be  seen  in  Paine's  McKen- 
dree,  II.  332. 


372  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


ences  in  the  Church,  instead  of  fading  away  with  the  lapse 
of  time,  have  been  accentuated  at  critical  junctures,  before, 
at,  and  since  the  division  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  until  dis- 
tinct and  opposed  conceptions  of  our  Church  government, 
particularly  of  the  powers  and  relations  of  the  General 
Conference,  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  Episcopacy, 
have  been  crystallized  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  That  the 
organic  union  of  these  congenetic  Churches  is  a  consum- 
mation devoutly  to  be  wished  for,  is  an  abstract  propo- 
sition, which  it  would  be  equally  devoid  of  practical  result  to 
support  or  to  oppose,  and  which,  as  lying  beyond  the  prov- 
ince of  these  pages,  we  may  be  pardoned  for  passing  without 
raising.  A  union — not  absorption — on  terms  equally  hon- 
orable and  satisfactory  to  both  (if  there  is  any  reasonable 
hope  that  the  Churches  can  satisfy  the  conditions  of  this 
easily  recited  but  hitherto  imaginary  formula)  is,  it  may  be 
allowed,  an  adjourned  question,  which  neither  party  should 
hastily  or  peremptorily  close.  Certainly  we  have  no  desire 
to  prejudice  its  decision  here.  But  it  would  be  folly  to  shut 
our  eyes  to  these  historic,  fundamental  differences  of  three 
quarters  of  a  century's  standing,  and  attempt  to  bring  the 
severed  parts  by  external  pressure  into  a  mechanical  and  su- 
perficial union.  Bishop  Asbury  exercised  the  episcopal 
office  for  thirty-two  years — twenty-four  before  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution,  and  eight  under  its  operation.  His  con- 
ception of  the  important  organic  functions  of  his  office,  and 
of  its  unique  position  in  the  government  of  Methodism,  is 
sufficiently  obvious  from  the  preceding  pages.  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree  was  chosen  a  bishop  by  the  General  Conference 
which  created  the  delegated  body  and  ordained  its  constitu- 
tion. During  the  eight  closing  years  of  Asbury' s  episcopate 
and  life,  the  two  Bishops,  alone  in  the  discharge  of  their 
high  duties,  were  inseparable  in  their  official  characters  and 
functions,  and  most  intimate  in  their  personal  associations. 
They  attended  the  Conferences  in  company,  and,  when  the 
constitutionality  of  their  episcopal  administration  in  the  crea- 


The  ^uadrennium,  182&-1824.  373 


tion  of  the  Genesee  Conference  was  challenged  in  the  Vir- 
ginia Conference,  Asbury  took  his  appeal  to  the  Annual 
Conferences  which,  like  the  General  Conference  which  fol- 
lowed, approved  the  administration  of  the  Bishops.  That 
McKendree,  in  these  long  tours,  became,  in  no  servile  but 
yet  in  a  very  vital  sense,  the  depositary  and  custodian  of  the 
primitive  Asbury  an  views  and  practices,  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  Joshua  Soule  was  an  itinerant  preacher  for  seven- 
teen years  under  the  administration  of  Asbury.  The  whole 
of  his  itinerant  life,  with  the  exception  of  two  years  in  Bal- 
timore, just  before  he  accepted  the  episcopal  office,  was 
passed  in  the  New  England  and  New  York  Conferences. 
He  thus  had  no  sectional  affiliations  with  the  Southern  wing 
of  the  Church.  He  was  the  author  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Church,  acquainted  with  every  detail  of  its  history  from 
its  inception  to  its  adoption.  In  1820,  after  a  double  elec- 
tion— for  the  refusal  to  accept  his  resignation  was  equivalent 
to  a  second  election,  and  that  by  an  increased  majority — he 
refused,  under  circumstances  most  creditable  to  himself,  to 
be  ordained  to  the  high  office  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  In  1824,  with  no  change  or  concealment 
of  his  views,  and  after  a  quadrennium  of  (at  that  time)  un- 
paralleled excitement  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  during 
which  time  his  sympathy  and  cooperation  with  the  Senior 
Bishop,  in  the  heroic  remedies  which  he  sought  to  administer 
to  the  body  ecclesiastic,  were  universally  known,  he  was  the 
first  man  elected  to  the  episcopal  office  by  a  General  Con- 
ference which  had  been  chosen  with  express  reference  to  the 
decision  of  the  controversies  that  were  then  rending  the 
Church.  This  was  high  endorsement,  but  no  higher  than 
such  a  man  deserved.  The  same  General  Conference 
passed  a  measure,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  settled,  so  far  as 
that  body  could,  the  method  by  which  constitutional  issues 
might  be  appealed  to  the  tribunal  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, in  accordance  with  the  views  and  practice  of  Bishop 
McKendree.  Twenty  years  roll  by.  McKendree  and 
George  and  Roberts  have  joined  the  celestial  ranks.  Soule 


374  '^^^  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


is  the  Senior  Bishop  of  a  yet  undivided  but  irreconcilably 
discordant  Episcopal  Methodism.  By  his  side  stand  Red- 
ding and  Andrew  and  Waugh  and  Morris — good  men  and 
true,  all  of  them,  whom  the  Church  honored  in  their  lives, 
and  whom  devout  men  carried  to  their  burial  with  great  lam- 
entation. If  Emory  and  Fisk  had  been  there,  another  re- 
sult might  possibly  have  been  reached.  But  an  All-wise 
Providence  did  not  so  permit.  There  is  again  a  sharp  con- 
flict between  the  Episcopacy  and  the  General  Conference, 
before  which  that  of  1820  pales  into  insignificance.  Into  its 
merits  and  changing  phases  it  would  be  premature  to  enter 
at  this  stage  of  our  history.  Nor  is  it  necessary.  The  tall 
New  England  Senior  is  found  standing  where  he  stood  a 
quarter  of  a  century  before — once  more,  and  on  an  intens- 
er  issue,  against  his  own  New  England  people.  His  place 
of  residence  was  not  in  the  Southland;  and  the  difference 
between  the  civil  institutions  of  the  North  and  the  South  was 
not  the  primary  issue  in  his  mind.  Doubtless  on  that  ques- 
tion he  was  one  with  his  colleague,  Bishop  Hedding,  both 
of  them,  in  their  administration,  having  taken  the  same  stand. 
But  he  planted  himself,  as  aforetime,  on  the  Constitution. 
A  gentleman  of  keen  intellect  and  unblemished  Christian 
character,  whose  subsequent  ofllicial  career,  though  brief, 
was  highly  useful  and  honorable,  arose  in  his  seat  one  Mon- 
day morning  to  address  the  General  Conference.  He  had 
been  reared  among  influences  foreign  to  Methodism,  and, 
though  finally  adopting  the  law  as  a  profession,  had,  in  earlier 
life,  intended  entering  the  ministry  in  the  Congregational 
Church,  and,  indeed,  though  at  times  suffering  from  tempo- 
rary mental  aberration,  had  begun  to  preach  in  Congrega- 
tional and  Presbyterian  pulpits.  He  had  been  a  Methodist 
about  sixteen  years,  and  it  had  been  less  than  twelve  years 
since  his  admission  on  trial,  at  the  age  of  thirty-five,  into  an 
Annual  Conference.*  In  polished  periods,  he  had  some- 
what to  say  about  mandamus  proceedings,  a  tortious  seizin^ 
the  episcopacy  as  an  "  abstraction  "  and  a  "  gallery  of  disa- 

*Hibbard's  Hamline,  pp.  16,  17,  20,  21,  43,  54. 


The  J^uadrennium,  1820-1824.  375 


bilities,"  and  finally  advanced,  *'  as  a  mere  logical  formula," 
(to  use  his  own  words)  an  ingenious  and  novel  theory  of  the 
government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — the  cele- 
brated "  Croton  River"  view  of  the  universal  supremacy  of 
the  General  Conference,  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive. 
"  If  it  err,  which  is  not  a  legal  presumption,"  said  Mr. 
HamHne,  "  its  unwholesome  error  is  incurable,  except  by  the 
vis  medicatrix — the  medicinal  virtue — of  its  own  judicial  en- 
ergies." It  was  such  a  speech  as  for  originality,  analytical 
power,  and  literary  finish,  the  General  Conference  had  not 
heard  for  many  a  day.  It  made  its  author  a  Bishop,  for  the 
majority  had  at  last  found  a  man  who  had  laid  a  platform 
broad  enough  for  them  to  stand  upon.  We  have  said  the 
theory  was  novel:  the  Senior  Bishop  declared  to  the  General 
Conference  he  had  never  before  heard  its  doctrines  so  much 
as  hinted.*  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  trace  of  them  in 
the  literature  of  the  Church  before  1844.  But  the  Confer- 
ence not  only  adopted  them,  but  proceeded  at  once  to  act 
upon  them,  and  Mr.  Hamline's  views  have  since  become  ca- 
nonical in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  constitu- 
tional party — for  such  the  minority  were,  whatever  else  they 
may  have  been — withdrew.  A  separate  and  distinct  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  was  organized.  As  the  law  book 
of  this  Church,  the  existing  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  was  adopted,  without  the  change  of  a 
doctrine  or  provision,  constitutional  or  statutory. f  Bishop 

*  Bishop  Soule  said:  "  I  wish  to  say  explicitly  that  if  the  Superintendents 
are  only  to  be  regarded  as  the  officers  of  the  General  Conference,  liable  to 
be  deposed  at  will  by  a  simple  majority  of  this  body  without  a  form  of  trial, 
no  obligation  existing,  growing  out  of  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
Church,  even  to  assign  cause  wherefore — everything  I  have  to  say  hereafter 
is  powerless  and  falls  to  the  ground.  But,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  although 
I  have  had  the  privilege  to  be  a  member  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ever  since  its  present  organization ;  though  I 
was  honored  with  a  seat  in  the  convention  of  ministers  which  organized  it, 
I  have  heard  for  the  first  time,  either  on  the  floor  of  this  Conference,  in  an 
Annual  Conference,  or  through  the  whole  of  the  private  membership  of  the 
Church,  this  doctrine  advanced;  this  is  the  first  time  I  ever  heard  it." 

fSaid  Annual  Conferences,  "  are  hereby  constituted  a  separate  ecclesi- 
astical connection,"  "based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


376  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


Soule,  the  last  Senior  Bishop  of  the  undivided  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  became  the  first  Senior  Bishop  of  the 
Church  thus  established,  abandoning  his  section  and  his  ex- 
alted station,  alienating  many  old  friends  and  making  many 
new  enemies,  to  cast  in  his  lot,  amid  much  obloquy,  with 
the  new  and  untried  organization,  which  had  naught  to  com- 
mend it  to  the  first  officer  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
save  its  adherence  to  the  constitutional  principles  which  he 
had  always  embraced  and  championed.  This  man's  life  is 
all  of  a  piece — in  1808,  in  1820,  in  1844.  That  he  should 
have  taken  this  course,  under  these  circumstances,  is  a  vin- 
dication of  the  claim  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  that,  back  of  all  sectional  differences,  however  dis- 
ruptive and  uncontrollable,  lay  this  constitutional  difference. 
It  was  as  marked  when  seven  Southern  Conferences  took 
their  stand  in  1821-2  by  the  side  of  McKendree  and  Soule, 
and  five  Northern  Conferences  ranged  themselves  over 
against  them,  as  it  was  at  any  later  period.  To-day,  the 
Constitution  framed  by  Joshua  Soule,  with  his  interpreta- 
tion of  it,  is  still  the  corner-stone  of  the  government  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Since  the  separation,  each  Church  has  moved  along  its 
own  chosen  course.  The  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  are  commonly  said  to  be  "  officers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  "  and  no  more.  The  General  Conference 
is  both  the  primary  and  final  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of 
its  own  acts.  One  of  the  Bishops  ably  and  conclusively  ar- 
gues in  an  official  journal,  his  right  to  refuse  to  put  a  mo- 
tion which,  in  his  judgment,  is  an  infraction  of  the  constitu- 
tion;  but,  if  he  should  reduce  his  principles  to  practice,  it 
is  not  doubtful  that  he  would  be  rather  severely  handled  by 
the  General  Conference.  Should  the  General  Conference 
at  any  time,  however  innocently,  exceed  its  constitutional 
powers,  the  Annual  Conferences  have  no  protection  and  no 

Church,"  and  "comprehending  the  doctrines  and  entire  moral,  ecclesi- 
astical, and  economical  rules  and  regulations  of  said  Discipline,  except  only 
in  so  far  as  verbal  alterations  may  be  necessary  to  a  distinct  organization." 
— Actwn  of  Louisville  Convention. 


The  ^uadrennium,  1820-1824.  377 


redress ;  the  Bishops  can  only  submit  or  resign ;  the  Church 
itself,  should  the  guaranteed  rights  of  the  membership  be 
invaded,  has  no  remedy  save  that  of  revolution.  There  is 
no  power  but  of — the  General  Conference.  If  a  proposed 
amendment  fails  of  the  constitutional  majority  in  the  Annual 
Conferences,  the  General  Conference  may  and  does  return 
the  same  proposition  in  reversed  statement,  so  as  to  require 
the  constitutional  majority  in  order  to  maintain  the  govern- 
ment as  it  is.*  Should  a  Bishop  decline  to  submit,  or  an  An- 
nual Conference  refuse  to  vote,  upon  this  new  statement  of 
a  proposition  already  constitutionally  rejected,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  why  either  would  not  be  guilty  of  contumacy  and  a 
disorderly  rejection  of  the  General  Conference  supremacy. 
The  Bishops,  in  formal  communications  to  the  General  Con- 
ferences, ask  that  body  to  decide  questions  of  law  or  to  in- 
terpret the  language  of  the  Discipline.  Their  communica- 
tion is  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  and  when  the 
General  Conference  acts  on  their  report,  the  decision  is  fi- 
nal, and  the  Bishops  govern  themselves  accordingly.  Thus 
the  functions  of  a  legislature  and  a  supreme  court  are  com- 
bined in  the  same  body.  An  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
President  of  an  Annual  Conference  on  a  point  of  law, 
likewise,  lies  to  the  ensuing  General  Conference.  The 
"  Croton  River"  conception  of  the  government  has  been 
universally  accepted,  and  its  principles  are  applied  without 
question. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  the  constitutional  origin  and  protection  of  the  episco- 
pacy is  accepted  as  a  maxim.  The  College  of  Bishops  is 
the  supreme  court  of  appeals  in  legal  decisions.  An  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  a  President  of  an  Annual  Conference 
on  a  law  point  lies  to  the  whole  College  of  Bishops,  whose 
decision  is  final.  Their  interpretation  of  the  law  is  authori- 
tative, and  governs  the  administration  until  the  General  Con- 

*  See  Report  No.  II.  of  the  Committee  on  Judiciary,  the  Moore  substitute, 
and  the  Hamilton  amendment,  on  the  seating  of  women  in  the  General  Con- 
ference.   Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  XII.  1892,  pp.  358,  359,  486. 


378 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


ference  changes  the  statute.*  Moreover  the  Bishops  are  con- 
stitutionally the  primary  judges  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
acts  of  the  General  Conference.  Their  functions  as  the  law- 
officers  of  the  Church  are  never  suspended,  during  the  session 
of  the  General  Conference,  which  creates  no  judiciary  com- 
mittee, or  at  any  other  time.  Not  that  they  possess  a  "  veto 
power  "  in  the  proper  sense,  but  that  they  are  empowered  to 
carry  the  appeal  to  the  tribunal  of  the  Annual  Conferences, 
that  the  Bishops,  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  Church 
itself,  may  be  protected  from  that  most  dangerous  of  all  tyr- 
annies— the  tyranny  of  an  oligarchy,  which  proclaims  its 
own  supremacy  and  irresponsibility — whose  errors,  even 
though  they  be  undesigned  and  unconscious,  are  not  the  less 
dangerous,  and  are  incurable  by  any  independent  or  consti- 
tutional or  coordinate  agency. 

The  merits  of  these  two  contrasted  systems  of  government 
in  Episcopal  Methodism,  it  does  not  become  us  to  argue  in 
these  pages.  If  we  have  inadvertently  fallen  into  the  small- 
est error  as  to  matter  of  fact  in  the  preceding  statements,  no 
one  could  be  more  grateful  for  a  prompt  correction.  Thus 
the  differences  which  date  back  to  1820  have  been  crystal- 
lized in  two  Churches,  which,  bearing  the  same  generic  name, 
and  to  the  superficial  observer  having  the  same  episcopal 
government,  are  as  widely  separated  as  the  poles.  Accord- 
ing to  the  precedents  and  genius  of  the  government  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  its  broad  construction  of 
the  constitution,  and  its  universally  supreme  General  Con- 
ference, there  is  no  reason  why  this  body  should  not,  by  a 
majority  vote,  alter  the  tenure  of  the  episcopal  office  from  life 
to  a  term  of  years;  confine  the  administration  of  a  Bishop 

*  "An  Annual  Conference  shall  have  the  right  to  appeal  from  such  decis- 
ion to  the  College  of  Bishops,  whose  decision  in  such  cases  shall  be  final. 
.  .  .  And  each  Bishop  shall  report  in  writing  to  the  Episcopal  College,  at 
an  annual  meeting  to  be  held  by  them,  such  decisions  as  he  has  made  subse- 
quently to  the  last  preceding  meeting;  and  all  such  decisions,  when  approved 
by  the  College  of  Bishops,  shall  be  recorded  in  a  permanent  form,  and  pub- 
lished in  such  manner  as  the  Bishops  shall  agree  to  adopt,  and  when  so  ap- 
proved, recorded,  and  published,  they  shall  be  authoritative  interpretations 
or  constructions  of  the  law." — Discipline,  1890. 


The  ^uadrennium,  1820-1824.  379 


by  law  to  a  given  episcopal  district;  or  enervate  the  episco- 
pacy by  a  refusal  to  elect  additional  Bishops  as  their  ranks 
are  thinned  by  death.*  Similarly  the  presiding  eldership 
might,  by  a  majority  vote,  be  essentially  modified  or  abohshed. 
If  any  of  these  measures  were  determined  upon,  it  might  be 
that  the  conservatives  could  prevail  upon  their  advocates  to 
consent  to  effect  them  by  the  constitutional  process ;  but  this 
would  be  an  abandonment  of  the  principles  generally  accept- 
ed by  the  Church  since  they  were  first  set  forth  by  Mr. 
Hamline,  and  the  Annual  Conferences  would  speak  purely 
by  the  concession  and  grace  of  the  General  Conference.  If 
the  General  Conference  in  its  supreme  judicial  capacity 
should  decide  against  the  submission  of  any  of  these^  meas- 
ures, or  others  like  them,  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  and 
should  pass  any  of  them  simply  by  a  majority  vote,  the 
Bishops,  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  Church  would 
all  be  alike  helpless,  unless  they  resorted  to  the  inalienable 
right  of  revolution.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  if  any  of  these  changes  become 
desirable,  there  would  be  no  question  that  they  must  be  ef- 
fected by  the  constitutional  process.  The  episcopal  office 
might  be  held  by  a  quadrennial  tenure,  or  the  presiding  eld- 
ership become  elective  or  cease  to  exist;  but  such  changes 
could  not  be  effected  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. Hence  waiving,  as  before,  or  conceding,  if  the 
reader  choose,  the  abstract  question  of  the  desirabiUty  of  the 

*In  his  celebrated  speech,  Mr.  Hamline  said.  "Our  Church  constitution 
recognizes  the  Epicopacy  as  an  abstraction,  and  leaves  this  body  to  work  it 
into  a  concrete  form  in  any  hundred  or  more  ways  we  may  be  able  to  in- 
vent. We  may  make  one,  five,  or  twenty  bishops;  and  if  we  please,  one  for 
each  Conference.  We  may  refuse  to  elect  another  until  all  die  or  resign ; 
and  then,  to  maintain  the  Episcopacy,  which  we  are  bound  to  do,  we  must  elect 
one,  at  least.  As  to  his  term,  we  may  limit  it  at  pleasure,  or  leave  it  unde- 
termined. 'Qut  \n  thK  ca.&e  i&  it  undeterminable ?  Certainly  not.  The  power 
which  elected  may  then  displace.  In  all  civil  constitutions,  as  far  as  I  know, 
not  to  fix  an  officer's  term,  is  to  suspend  it  on  the  will  of  the  appointing  power. 
Cabinet  ministers  and  secretaries  are  examples.  No  officer  as  such  can 
claim  incumbency  for  life,  unless  such  a  term  be  authoritatively  and  express- 
ly fixed  upon." 


38o 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


reunion,  on  broad  Christian  principles,  of  the  two  Methodist 
Episcopal  Churches,  there  confronts  us  the  problem,  of 
whose  easy  solution  only  one  ignorant  of  the  history  of  the 
Church  could  be  sanguine,  of  a  formal,  exphcit,  and  mu- 
tually satisfactory  adjustment  and  reconciliation  of  the  fun- 
damentally opposed  schemes  of  government  in  the  two 
Churches. 

Between  the  General  Conferences  of  1820  and  1824, 
Bishop  McKendree's  health  was  infirm  and  his  trials  great; 
but,  says  he, 

I  pursued  my  course  as  well  as  I  could  until  the  fall  preceding  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1824,  when,  observing  the  method  adopted  by  some,  and 
thinking  that  I  could  not  attend  the  Annual  Conferences  without  interfer- 
ing with  their  measures,  or  at  least  seeming  to  interfere  in  the  election  of 
delegates  to  the  ensuing  General  Conference,  which  I  deemed  derogatory 
to  my  station,  therefore,  notwithstanding  the  fate  of  our  controversy  de- 
pended on  the  representatives  to  be  chosen  at  the  three  following  Confer- 
ences, I  committed  the  cause  to  God,  and  went  no  farther  than  the  Tennessee 
Conference.  Great  were  the  efforts  to  secure  a  majority  in  favor  of  the  sus- 
pended resolutions,  but  they  proved  unsuccessful. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 


THE  FOURTH  AND  FIFTH  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFER- 
ENCES, AND  THE  INTERVENING  QUADRENNIUM, 
1824-1828. 

THE  Fourth  Delegated  General  Conference  met  in  Balti- 
more, Saturday,  May  i,  1824,  with  the  three  bishops 
and  about  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  delegates  present  at 
the  opening.  Memorials  poured  in  declaring  that  "  the  peo- 
ple were  the  source  of  legislative  authority;"  that  "  the  pow- 
er of  the  Bishops  was  to  be  found  nowhere  else  but  in 
popes;"  that  "we  have  no  constitution;"  that  "the  re- 
strictive parts  of  the  Discipline  are  not  binding  on  succeed- 
ing General  Conferences  after  1808;"  nor  "  upon  the  laity, 
as  they  were  made  by  a  legislative  body,  without  the  design 
or  authority  to  adopt  a  constitution,"  etc.* 

The  question  on  the  suspended  resolutions  was  introduced 
by  Peter  Cartwright,  who  gave  notice.  May  19,  that  the  next 
day  he  would  offer  the  following: 

Whereas  the  resolutions  which  were  suspended  at  the  last  General  Con- 
ference are  null  and  void,  inasmuch  as  a  majority  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences have  judged  them  unconstitutional,  and  whereas  six  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  have  recommended  their  adoption;  therefore 

Resolved,  etc..  That  said  resolutions  go  into  efiect  as  soon  as  their  adoption 
shall  be  recommended  by  those  Annual  Conferences  which  have  not  recom- 
mended them,  they  being  approved  by  two-thirds  of  the  present  General 
Conference. 

Mr.  Cartwright  represented  the  Kentucky  Conference, 
which  had  both  pronounced  the  suspended  resolutions  un- 
constitutional and  recommended  their  constitutional  adop- 
tion by  the  consent  of  all  the  Conferences.  His  preamble 
recites  the  facts  correctly:  seven  Conferences,  including 
South  Carolina,  had  pronounced  them  unconstitutional ;  but 

*Paine's  McKendree,  II.  33. 

(381) 


382 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  South  Carolina  had  refused  to  recommend  their  adop- 
tion, as  we  have  seen  from  original  evidence,  leaving  but  six 
which  had  taken  the  positive  action  recommended  by  Bish- 
op McKendree  for  the  sake  of  peace. 

Bishop  McKendree's  address  submitted  two  questions: 
(i)  Are  the  suspended  resolutions  constitutional?  (2)  If 
unconstitutional,  shall  they  be  adopted  in  a  constitutional 
way,  by  the  suspension  of  the  restrictive  rule?  Mr.  Cart- 
wright's  resolution  formally  recognizes  the  principle,  which 
seems  to  have  been  universally  admitted  at  the  time,  that  a 
majority  of  the  Conferences,  acting  in  a  judicial  capacity, 
might  determine  the  question  of  constitutionality,  for  or 
against.  If  a  majority  decided  the  resolutions  to  be  consti- 
tutional, that  ended  the  controversy,  adversely  to  Bishop 
McKendree  and  the  constitutionalists,  and  the  resolutions 
were  to  go  into  effect.  But,  if  the  majority  decided  them  to 
be  unconstitutional,  there  was  still  the  constitutional  method 
of  making  them  effective,  namely,  by  the  recommendation 
of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  required  for  the  alteration  or 
suspension  of  the  restrictive  rule.  If  we  are  mistaken  in  the 
statement  that  the  principle  was  generally  accepted  that  a 
majority  of  the  Conferences  might  decide  the  primary  ques- 
tion of  constitutionality,  it  is  true  that  Bishop  McKendree, 
at  least,  assumed  and  acted  upon  it,  and  that  Mr.  Cart- 
wright,  a  member  of  the  constitutional  party,  by  formally 
embodying  it  in  his  resolution,  sought  to  commit  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  to  this  view  by  its  own  express  action. 
As  the  measure  which  the  General  Conference  finally  passed 
contained  an  equally  clear  and  express  statement  of  the  prin- 
ciple, the  General  Conference  of  1824  placed  the  formal 
stamp  of  its  official  approval  upon  the  course  which  Bishop 
McKendree  had  pursued,  and  recognized  the  binding,  legal 
force  of  the  decision  which  he  had  procured  from  the  Annu- 
al Conferences.  Mr.  Cartwright  designed,  however,  to  give 
the  Northern  Conferences  one  more  opportunity  to  secure 
the  adoption  of  their  favorite  measure  in  a  constitutional  way. 

The  next  day  Mr.  Cartwright  failed  to  call  up  his  measure ; 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  1824-18 28. 


383 


but,  May  21,  David  Young,  of  the  Ohio  Conference,  gave 
notice  that  he  would  offer  a  resolution  on  the  "  suspended 
resolutions."  In  the  afternoon,  the  w^ithdrawal  of  a  resolu- 
tion of  Mr.  Cartwright's  is  recorded:  it  appears  to  have 
been  the  one  cited  above.  The  constitutionalists  were  gain- 
ing confidence  and  were  rather  forcing  the  fighting.  Mr. 
Cartwright's  measure  had  been  thrown  out  to  develop  the 
position  and  strength  of  the  opposing  parties.  The  result 
proving  satisfactory  to  those  who  had  introduced  it,  it  was 
probably  understood  privately  that  Mr.  Young's  measure, 
which  was  stronger,  should  substitute  Mr.  Cartwright's. 
Accordingly,  May  22,  Mr.  Young  submitted  the  following: 

Whereas  a  majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences  have  judged  the  resolu- 
tions making  presiding  elders  elective,  and  which  were  passed  and  then  sus- 
pended at  the  last  General  Conference,  unconstitutional;  therefore 

Resolved,  etc.,  That  the  said  resolutions  are  not  of  authority  and  shall  not 
be  carried  into  effect. 

The  delay,  after  the  introduction  of  Mr.  Cartwright's  res- 
olution, had  probably  enabled  the  constitutionalists  to  satisfy 
themselves  of  one  or  both  of  two  things,  (i)  that  a  fresh  ref- 
erence to  the  Annual  Conferences  would  only  increase  the 
agitation,  with  no  prospect  that  the  Northern  Conferences 
would  accept  the  measure  on  a  constitutional  basis,  and  (2) 
that  the  constitutional  party  was  strong  enough  to  pass  the 
decisive  measure  of  Mr.  Young  in  the  General  Conference. 
Mr.  Young's  resolution  had  the  great  advantage  of  joining 
the  issue  on  the  constitutional  question,  pure  and  simple, 
without  reference  to  the  merits  of  the  presiding  elder  contro- 
versy. Accordingly  Monday  morning,  May  24,  his  measure 
was  called  up ;  a  motion  to  lay  it  on  the  table  was  defeated ; 
the  Journals  of  the  last  General  Conference,  and  of  the 
Ohio,  Kentucky,  Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Missouri,  Phila- 
delphia, New  York,  and  South  Carolina  Conferences,  were 
read,  so  far  as  they  bore  on  this  subject;  and,  in  the  after- 
noon, the  vote  being  taken  by  ballot,  Mr.  Young's  resolu- 
tion was  sustained,  and  the  constitutionalists  triumphed  by 
the  narrow  margin  of  63  to  61.* 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  270,  276,  277,  278,  281. 


384 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


By  this  action  the  General  Conference  formally  recog- 
nized the  validity  and  finality  of  a  decision  of  the  majority  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  against  the  constitutionality  of  the 
suspended  resolutions,  since  the  decision  was  recited  in  the 
preamble  of  Mr.  Young's  measure  as  the  sole  and  sufficient 
ground  of  the  declaration  that  the  suspended  resolutions 
"  are  not  of  authority"  and  "shall  not  be  carried  into  ef- 
fect." The  Senior  Bishop  had  prosecuted  to  a  successful 
issue  his  appeal  from  the  action  of  a  General  Conference  to 
the  tribunal  of  the  Annual  Conferences ;  and  the  Delegated 
General  Conference,  acting  under  a  constitution,  formally 
recognized  the  supremacy  of  the  primary  bodies  which  had 
called  it  into  existence. 

But  the  constitutionalists  triumphed — always  by  a  narrow 
majority — all  along  the  Hne.  By  a  vote  of  64  to  58,  as  we 
have  seen  in  a  preceding  chapter,  they  sent  to  the  Annual 
Conferences  for  adoption  the  constitutional  amendment,  pro- 
viding for  an  episcopal  veto  power  and,  in  a  defined  contin- 
gency, for  an  appeal  to  the  Annual  Conferences.*  A  ma- 
jority, no  doubt,  favored  this  plan,  but  that  it  was  defeated 
need  not  excite  surprise,  as  the  constitution  then  required  the 
consent  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  to  such  a  change. 
The  lines  were  closely  drawn  in  the  episcopal  election. 
Two  bishops  were  to  be  elected,  and  Joshua  Soule  and  Wil- 
liam Beauchamp  were  the  representatives  of  the  constitution- 
alists, and  Elijah  Hedding  and  John  Emory  of  their  oppo- 
nents. On  the  first  ballot  the  constitutional  "candidates" 
— the  word  is  freely  employed  by  contemporaries — led  the 
poll,  Soule  having  64,  Beauchamp  62,  Hedding  61,  and  Em- 
ory 59;  but,  128  ballots  having  been  cast,  there  was  no  elec- 
tion. On  the  second  ballot,  Mr.  Soule  received  65  votes 
and  was  elected,  no  other  receiving  a  majority.  But  before 
the  third  ballot  was  taken,  Mr.  Emory  arose  and  withdrew 
his  name.  This  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  modest 
act  of  the  youngest  man  whose  name  was  before  the  Con- 
ference.   Undoubtedly  it  was  such  an  act,  and  Mr.  Emory 


*  See  above,  pp.  354-357- 


The  Fourth  ajid  Fifth,  1824- 1S2S. 


385 


could  well  afford  to  wait.  But  it  was  more  than  this.  The 
fathers  were  not  quite  so  innocent  in  such  matters  as  is  usu- 
ally supposed.  There  was  now  no  possibility  of  the  election 
of  more  than  one  of  the  candidates  of  the  anti-constitution- 
alists, and  the  younger  man  withdrew  in  favor  of  the  senior 
and  leading  name.  Moreover,  but  one  name  was  to  go  on 
the  ballots  this  third  time,  since  Mr.  Soule  had  been  elected, 
and  if  Messrs.  Hedding  and  Emory  divided  the  votes  of  their 
party,  it  was  almost  certain  to  elect  Mr.  Beauchamp.  Conse- 
quently Mr.  Emory  withdrew,  and  on  the  third  ballot  Mr. 
Hedding  received  66  votes  to  Mr.  Beauchamp's  60,  and  was 
elected.*  There  was  an  element  of  danger  in  the  fact  that 
each  Bishop  had  been  chosen  by  a  sectional  and  party  vote; 
but  it  was  well  for  the  unity  of  the  Church,  divided  on  a 
constitutional  issue,  but  by  a  sectional  line,  that  each  party 
secured  a  Bishop.  No  fracture  took  place  but,  if  a  severe 
strain  should  come,  the  plane  of  cleavage  was  painfully  evi- 
dent. 

Mr.  Young's  measure  made  a  final  disposition  of  the  sus- 
pended resolutions.  Nevertheless,  it  was  agreed,  on  motion 
of  Robert  Paine  and  William  Capers,  both  of  whom  were 
elected  Bishops  at  the  first  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  that 

It  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  the  suspended  resolutions, 
making  the  presiding  elder  elective,  etc.,  are  considered  as  unfinished  busi- 
ness, and  are  neither  to  be  inserted  in  the  revised  form  of  the  Discipline,  nor 
to  be  carried  into  operation,  before  the  next  General  Conference.f 

So  high  did  the  tide  of  party  feeling  run  that  twice,  while 
this  resolution  was  pending.  Bishop  Roberts  in  the  chair,  the 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  285. 

^  Ibid.,  I.  297.  Bishop  McKendree  takes  this  view  of  the  intention  of  this 
resolution.  He  says:  "  On  the  commencement  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence [1824],  the  Bishops  took  the  subject  into  consideration,  and  unanimous- 
ly agreed  to  recommend  the  introduction  of  the  suspended  resolutions  so 
soon  as  they  should  be  recommended  by  those  Annual  Conferences  which 
had  not  already  authorized  the  change.  This  the  old  side — the  majority — 
I  understand,  are  willing  to  do.  But  this  our  reformers  refused  to  do.  The 
majority,  still  desirous  of  an  amicable  adjustment  of  differences,  would  not 
destroy  the  resolutions,  but  perpetuated  their  suspension.  This  is  my  view 
25 


386  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


quorum  was  broken,  and  only  under  the  remonstrances  of 
the  chairman  and  the  venerable  Freeborn  Garrettson  was  it 
restored,  and  the  measure  finally  passed.* 

We  have  seen  how  it  was  the  custom  first  of  Coke  and 
Asbury,  then  of  Asbury  and  Whatcoat,  and  finally  of  As- 
bury  and  McKendree,  to  attend  all  the  Conferences  in  com- 
pany whenever  practicable.  The  new  arrangement  in  1816, 
when  George  and  Roberts  were  added  to  the  espiscopal  col- 
lege, has  also  been  noticed. f  When  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1824  adjourned,  there  were  seventeen  Annual  Con- 
ferences and  five  Bishops,  four  of  whom  were  effective.  It 
was  necessary  that  the  plan  of  episcopal  supervision  should 
be  somewhat  further  developed  and,  to  meet  the  new  situa- 
tion, which  to  the  fathers  seemed  a  little  complex,  the  Com- 
mittee on  Episcopacy  recommended,  and  the  Conference 
passed,  the  following: 

Resolved,  &c.,  4.  That  it  is  highly  expedient  for  the  general  superintend- 
ents, at  every  session  of  the  General  Conference,  and  as  far  as  to  them  may 
appear  practicable,  In  the  intervals  of  the  sessions,  annually,  to  meet  in  coun- 
cil to  form  their  plan  of  traveling  through  their  charge,  whether  in  a  circuit 
after  each  other  or  by  dividing  the  connection  into  several  episcopal  depart- 
ments, with  one  bishop  or  more  in  each  department,  as  to  them  may  appear 
proper  and  most  conducive  to  the  general  good,  and  the  better  to  enable 
them  fully  to  perform  the  great  work  of  their  administration  in  the  general 
superintendency,  and  to  exchange  and  unite  their  views  upon  all  affairs  con- 
nected with  the  general  interests  of  the  Church.J 

This,  so  far  as  appears,  was  the  origin  of  the  "  Bishops' 
Meeting."  It  was  now  both  impossible  and  unnecessary 
for  all  the  Bishops  to  be  present  at  every  Conference.  The 
form  of  the  General  Conference  action,  it  will  be  noticed, 
is  advisory  only ;  and  leaves  to  the  discretion  of  the  Bishops 

of  the  matter.  Hence  the  change  in  our  government,  which  was  dictated 
by  the  reformers  is  defeated  by  the  reformers.  It  is  said  by  authority  to  be 
relied  upon,  that  nothing  short  of  investing  the  Annual  Conferences  with 
authority  to  constitute  the  presiding  elders,  independently  of  the  Bishops, 
and  to  make  the  presiding  elders  thus  appointed  a  committee  to  station 
the  preachers,  in  which  the  Bishop  shall  have  only  the  casting  vote,  will  sat- 
isfy the  Northern  brethren." 

*  Paine's  McKendree,  II.  40. 

fSee  above,  pp.  335,  336. 

JGen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  301,  302. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  1824-1828. 


387 


the  plan  of  Episcopal  visitation.  Under  the  Constitution  of 
the  Church,  a  Methodist  Bishop  remains  in  the  enjoyment 
of  all  his  Episcopal  powers  at  all  times  and  in  every  part  of 
the  Church.  His  administration  cannot  be  constitutionally 
restrained,  either  as  to  time  or  place,  by  any  statute  of  the 
General  Conference.  Any  such  limitation  arises  from  the 
comity  of  his  agreements  with  his  colleagues,  in  the  admin- 
istration of  a  joint,  itinerant,  general,  superintendency.  In 
the  present  complex  administration,  certain  violations  of  this 
comity  might  and  would  result  in  disaster;  but  any  proper 
episcopal  act  of  any  Bishop  at  any  time,  in  any  part  of  the 
Church,  would  be  valid.  Violations  of  this  comity  would  be 
primarily  canvassed  in  the  College  of  Bishops,  not  in  the 
General  Conference.  If  the  difference  could  not  be  set- 
tled there,  the  final  resort  would  be  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence, to  which  the  Bishops  are  jointly  responsible  for  the 
■whole  administration.  In  a  conceivable  state  of  affairs,  a 
constitutional  measure  might  become  necessary  for  the  per- 
manent settlement  of  such  issues.  In  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1824,  it  was  contended  by  some  that  the  body  had 
authority  to  divide  the  Church  into  episcopal  districts  for  the 
quadrennium;  but  Winans  triumphantl}^  vindicated  the  con- 
stitutional view,  in  a  speech  which  Bishop  Paine,  who  heard 
it,  describes  as  "thrilHng;"  and  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee was  adopted  as  recited  above.  Accordingly,  the  Bish- 
ops agreed  among  themselves  that  Roberts  and  Soule  were 
to  attend  the  western  and  southern  Conferences,  and 
George  and  Hedding  the  eastern  and  northern.  The  Sen- 
ior Bishop  sometimes  attended  more  Conferences  in  a  year 
than  either  of  his  colleagues,  as  he  traveled  throughout  the 
Church.  For  mar.y  years  following  it  was  not  unusual  for 
two  Bishops,  and  frequently  three,  to  be  present  at  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Annual  Conferences. 

The  legislation  in  1824  on  the  subject  of  slavery  is  em- 
braced in  the  following  paragraphs  inserted  in  the  Discipline : 

3.  All  our  preachers  shall  prudently  enforce  upon  our  members  the  neces- 
sity of  teaching  their  slaves  to  read  the  word  of  God;  and  to  allow  them 


388 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


time  to  attend  upon  the  public  worship  of  God  on  our  regular  days  of  di- 
vine service. 

4.  Our  colored  preachers  and  official  members  shall  have  all  the  privi- 
leges which  are  usual  to  others  in  the  district  and  quarterly  conferences, 
where  the  usages  of  the  country  do  not  forbid  it.  And  the  presiding  eld- 
er may  hold  for  them  a  separate  district  conference,  where  the  number  of 
colored  local  preachers  will  justify  it. 

5.  The  annual  conferences  may  employ  colored  preachers  to  travel  and 
preach  where  their  services  are  judged  necessary;  provided  that  no  one 
shall  be  so  employed  without  having  been  recommended  according  to  the 
Form  of  Discipline.* 

The  quadrennium  from  1824  to  1828  was  the  era  of  radi- 
calism. The  discussion  of  the  "  rights  "  of  the  itinerants  in 
the  election  of  presiding  elders,  had  aroused  the  local 
preachers  to  an  assertion  of  their  "rights"  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church.  The  laity  in  turn  took  up  the  agita- 
tion for  "rights,"  in  the  election  of  class-leaders  and  in 
making  changes  in  the  economy  of  the  Church.  All  the 
discontented  found  a  vehicle  of  communication  in  a  vigor- 
ous organ,  "  The  Mutual  Rights.''''  Baltimore  was  the  cen- 
ter of  the  maelstrom,  and  here  a  convention  of  the  reform- 
ers was  held  in  1827.  Large  demands  were  made  upon  the 
General  Conference  of  1828. 

But  by  this  time  the  conservative  elements  had  rallied  against  the  de- 
structive rush  of  threatened  revolution.  Even  lay  delegation,  the  last  plank 
and  the  most  popular  one  in  the  new  platform,  couid  not  then  be  considered 
with  the  favor  which  it  received  at  a  later  day.  The  temper  on  both  sides, 
in  the  greatly  widened  controversy,  was  unfavorable  to  concession.  The 
reformers  were  aggressive  and  hopeful,  for  several  reasons.  They  believed 
their  cause  just;  it  was  favored  by  the  political  tendency  of  the  country;  an 
envious  element  of  sectarianism  which  once  existed  in  other  denominations, 
and  was  ever  ready  to  humble  Methodism,  was  forward  and  loud  to  encour- 
age disaffection;  but  chiefly  they  miscalculated  as  to  the  final  adhesion  of 
men  who  had,  at  one  time  or  other,  expressed  views  in  sympathy  with  their 
own.  Even  Bascom  uttered  some  sentiments,  in  the  heyday  of  his  blood, 
which  were  not  in  harmony  with  his  maturer  life  as  one  of  the  strongest, 
steadiest,  and  most  trusted  leaders  of  Episcopal  Methodism  the  Church  has 
ever  had.  Hedding  leaned  that  way  once,|  on  the  original  question,  and 
Bangs  and  Waugh.  Emory  criticised  and  antagonized  Bishop  McKendree 
and  Joshua  Soule  for  the  prompt,  resolute  means  they  used  to  save  the  con- 
stitution.   Bishop  George,  in  judicial  weakness,  and  Bishop  Roberts,  by 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  294;  Emory's  Hist,  of  the  Discipline,  p.  279. 

fThat  Hedding  completely  reversed  his  opinion  on  the  presiding  eider  question,  see  his  life 
by  Bishop  Clark,  pp.  217-320. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  1 8 24-1 8 28. 


389 


amiable  irresolution,  in  the  primary  movement  let  the  ship  drive.  But  now, 
when  the  radical  tendencies  of  these  things  were  seen,  the  conservatives 
closed  ranks  and  stood  firm.  The  report  of  the  General  Conference,  made 
by  John  Emory,  was  kind,  strong,  and  conclusive,  and  put  an  end  to  the 
hopes  of  the  reformers,  who  proceeded  to  the  organization  of  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church.  .  .  .  Thoughtful  men  must  not  be  counted  on  to 
join  in  a  theoretical  and  destructive  reform  because  every  pin  and  screw  in 
the  tabernacle  that  has  sheltered  them  is  not  exactly  to  their  notion.* 

Before  me  lies  the  original  copy  of  what  may,  not  improp- 
erly, be  styled  the  official  minutes  of  the  first  Bishops'  meet- 
ing ever  held  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  is  in 
the  handwriting  of  Bishop  McKendree,  who  made  a  small, 
neat,  unbound  blank  book,  in  which  he  wrote  his  notes. 
About  this,  with  the  letters  which  passed  between  the  Bish- 
ops at  the  time,  he  placed  a  paper  band,  whose  ends  are 
fastened  together  with  sealing  wax,  and  inscribed  the  pack- 
et: "The  official  interviews  of  the  Bishops  in  Philadelphia, 
April,  1826."  The  General  Conference  of  1824  had  rec- 
ommended, as  we  have  seen,  such  an  annual  meeting.  Be- 
fore that  time,  there  had  never  been  more  than  three  con- 
temporary Bishops,  and  their  interviews  were  more  or  less 
irregular  and  informal.  As  they  were  frequently  all  pres- 
ent together  at  Annual  Conferences,  set  times  for  the  trans- 
action of  business  of  a  general  nature  were  unnecessar3% 
During  the  two  years  since  the  General  Conference,  Bishops 
George  and  Hedding  had  been  laboring  in  the  North,  and 
Bishops  Roberts  and  Soule  in  the  South.  That  no  meeting 
of  this  character  had  been  held  in  1825  appears  certain  from 
a  letter  which  Bishop  McKendree  addressed  to  Bishop 
George,  dated  Philadelphia,  April  22,  1826,  in  which  he 
says,  "Almost  two  years  have  elapsed  since  we  saw  each 
other."  This,  therefore,  was  the  first  official  meeting  of 
the  Bishops,  the  main  business  which  called  them  together 
being  to  appoint  a  fraternal  delegate  to  England,  according 
to  the  direction  of  the  General  Conference,  and  to  discuss 
the  plan  of  episcopal  visitation.  Two  sessions  were  held, 
both  in  Bishop  McKendree's  room,  one  on  the  afternoon  of 


♦  Bishop  McTyeire,  History  of  Methodism,  pp.  572,  573. 


390 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


April  13,  and  the  other  at  six  o'clock  in  the  morning  of 
April  18 — an  hour  long  since  abandoned  for  such  episcopal 
interviews.  Bishops  George  and  Hedding  were  holding  the 
Philadelphia  Conference,  and  Bishops  McKendree  and 
Soule  came  from  the  South.    Bishop  Roberts  was  absent. 

These  memoranda  have  not  hitherto  been  pubHshed:  the 
thoughtful  reader  will  see  in  the  sequel  how  their  insertion 
here  subserves  the  ends  of  this  history.  Says  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree: 

Bishop  Soule  and  myself  arrived  at  Dr.  Sargent's,  in  Philadelphia,  in  the 
evening  of  the  12th  of  April,  and  waited  in  expectation  of  seeing  Bp.  George, 
who  put  up  within  about  one  square  of  our  lodging.  When  the  morning 
of  the  13th  was  far  spent,  I  addressed  a  note  to  Bp.  George  requesting  an  in- 
terview as  soon  as  practicable,  and  proposed  to  [wait]  on  him  at  the  place  and 
hour  which  he  would  appoint.  On  account  of  business  he  deferred  it  until 
the  afternoon  and  promised  to  wait  on  us  at  mj  room.  Accordingly  Bishops 
George  and  Hedding  came.  Bp.  Soule  was  present,  and  our  business  was 
introduced. 

The  appointment  of  a  messenger  to  the  British  Conference  was  proposed. 
Bp.  G.  thought  that  appointment  was  discretionary  with  the  bishops, — that 
we  had  no  business  of  material  consequence, — that  the  expense  would  be 
considerable;  and,  therefore,  he  was  opposed  to  appointing  a  man.  Bishop 
Soule  produced  the  resolutions  of  the  General  Conference,*  and  a  letter 
from  the  preachers  in  Canada,  proposing  instructions  to  the  contemplated 
messenger;  they  were  read.  And  Wm.  Capers,  who  had  been  fixed  on  by 
Roberts  and  Soule,  was  nominated  by  McKendree  and  objected  to  by  George 
and  Hedding,  because  he  was  the  owner  of  slaves.  George  nominated  W. 
Fisk  or  E.  Cooper.  A  little  desultory  conversation  passed.  Bp.  George 
said  his  business  pushed — he  must  retire — but  take  business  into  considera- 
tion. Bp.  McK.  then  proposed  another  subject  for  their  consideration,  which 
was  for  the  bishops,  George  and  Hedding,  to  change  with  Roberts  and  Soule 
next  year,  in  order  for  each  bishop  to  visit  all  the  Annual  Conferences  be- 
fore the  next  General  Conference. 

There  were  several  other  subjects  of  great  importance  to  the  Church  to 
be  discussed,  but  the  bishop  was  in  a  great  hurry,  and  they  were  reserved  for 
the  next  meeting.  This  interview  took  up  about  three  quarters  of  an  hour, 
and  we  parted. 

While  sitting  in  Conference,  Monday,  17,  a  note  from  Bishop  George  was 
handed  to  me  by  Hedding,  proposing  an  interview  at  six  o'clock  next  morn- 
ing, if  advisable.  Bp.  Soule  consenting  to  the  proposal,  the  note  was  imme- 
diately answered  in  the  affirmative:  and  about  the  appointed  time  on  the 
i8th  the  bishops  came  to  my  room. 

*  "  Resolved,  that  the  general  superintendents  be,  and  are  hereby  authorized  and  requested 
to  appoint  a  delegate  to  the  British  Conference,  to  visit  them  in  1826,  under  the  same  regula- 
tions that  were  adopted  in  1820." — Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  294. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  182 4-18 28. 


391 


The  business  was  introduced  by  Bp.  George.  He  professed  to  be  pressed 
with  business — to  be  in  a  great  hurry— introduced  the  subject  of  appointing 
a  delegate  to  England — supposed  Bp.  Soule  and  myself  had  not  altered  our 
opinions — that  he  could  not  approve  of  the  man  of  our  choice — that  he  still 
thought  we  were  not  obliged  to  appoint  a  representative  to  England  at  this 
time.  The  resolution  of  the  General  Conference,  he  said,  was  advisory. 
There  was  not  business  of  sufficient  importance  to  make  it  necessary  and 
the  expense  would  be  very  considerable.  He  was  therefore  opposed  to  the 
appointment  of  a  delegate  at  this  time.  After  a  few  remarks  on  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  General  Conference,  Bp.  Hedding  thought  the  resolution  required 
the  appointment  of  a  minister  to  England;  but  such  were  his  apprehensions 
of  consequences  from  the  North  if  a  slave-holder  should  be  appointed,  that 
he  would  join  with  Bp.  George  to  send  no  one,  and  risk  the  consequences. 
To  all  of  which,  Bps.  McKendree  and  Soule  made  no  reply.  They  said 
nothing  for  or  against  either  of  the  persons  in  nomination ;  but  let  the  sub- 
ject drop,  in  consequence  of  a  determination  on  the  part  of  the  other  bish- 
ops to  have  matters  conducted  as  they  pleased — or  do  nothing.  Further 
conversation  on  this  subject  ceased  of  course. 

Bp.  George  then  mentioned  the  subject  of  the  Bishops  changing  their 
ground  for  the  next  year,  and  proceeded  to  show  difficulties,  impracticability, 
etc.  An  attempt  was  made  to  answer  them,  and  to  show  the  practicability 
and  propriety  of  the  measure.  But  the  Bishop  pronounced  it  inadmissible! 
Said  he  was  hurried  by  a  press  of  business  and  must  go!  On  this  occasion 
the  bishops  were  together  about  an  hour. 

Thus  ended  our  official  interviews,  on  various  business  of  the  Church, 
which,  by  McKendree,  Roberts,  and  Soule,  was  judged  to  be  of  sufficient 
magnitude  to  call  all  the  bishops  together  to  consult  and  arrange  their  busi- 
ness. Bp.  Roberts,  whose  situation  exposed  him  to  the  most  serious  incon- 
veniences, concluded,  for  the  sake  of  the  case,  to  make  the  sacrifice,  and  the 
time  was  appointed  for  them  to  meet  in  Baltimore,  to  perform  this  duty  of  a 
jointly  responsible  general  superintendency ,  and  labor  of  love  to  the  Church. 
But,  alas!  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  laudable  design. 

The  relations  of  Bishops  McKendree  and  George  had  been 
somewhat  strained  since  1820.  But  with  this  we  have  noth- 
ing to  do  here :  the  good  men  have  long  since  seen  eye  to 
eye  in  their  Father's  house.  The  material  point  is  that  at 
this  early  date,  the  College  of  Bishops,  no  less  than  the 
General  Conference,  and  the  Annual  Conferences,  was  di- 
vided, not  only  on  the  issue  of  the  appointment  of  a  delegate 
to  England,  but  upon  a  proper  rotation  of  the  Bishops,  who, 
as  itinerant  general  superintendents,  should  have  been  equally 
known  in  every  part  of  the  Church.  Of  the  two  questions 
discussed  at  the  first  Bishops'  meeting,  (i)  the  appointment 
of  the  delegate,  and  (2)  the  fixing  of  a  general  itinerary  of 


392 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  superintendents,  the  latter  was  of  incomparably  greater 
importance  to  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  Bishop  Hedding  in  twenty  years,  from  1824  to 
1844,  made  but  a  single  tour  of  the  Southern  Conferences, 
and  that  in  1831,  seven  years  after  he  became  a  Bishop:  in 
the  same  year  Bishop  Soule  made  his  first  episcopal  visita- 
tion in  the  North  I  The  Bishops  were  localized.  Again 
and  again  Roberts  and  Soule  advanced  as  far  north  as  the 
Baltimore  Conference  and  returned  again  on  their  southern 
track;  again  and  again  George  and  Hedding  came  as  far 
south  as  the  Philadelphia  Conference,  and  retreated  into 
New  York,  New  England,  and  Canada;  many  a  time  since 
have  the  Bishops  of  two  Episcopal  Methodisms  carried 
their  oversight  to  the  same  limits  and  retired  into  the  North 
or  the  South!  Let  us  look  a  Httle  more  closely  into  this. 
The  day  after  the  adjournment  of  the  "  Bishops'  meeting," 
Bishop  McKendree  penned  this  letter: 

Philadelphia,  April  19,  1826. 

To  Bishops  George  and  Hedding  : 

In  our  interviews  in  this  city,  I  have  advised  you  and  the  other  Bishops 
to  change,  in  order  for  each  to  visit  all  the  Annual  Conferences  before  the 
next  General  Conference. 

The  harmony  of  the  episcopacy  and  the  prosperity  of  the  Church  influ- 
ence me  to  give  this  advice;  but  I  claim  no  authority  over  my  colleagues. 
If,  therefore,  the  change  involves  insurmountable  difficulties,  on  your  part, 
it  is  your  right  to  decline  such  a  course.  But,  in  either  event,  it  is  my 
earnest  request,  that  our  next  round  of  Conferences  may  commence  in 
Philadelphia,  May  3,  1827,  or,  if  more  convenient  to  you,  on  the  26th  of 
April,  and  conclude  in  Ohio,  October  11,  and  proceed  as  near  the  following 
dates  as  the  distance  from  one  to  another  will  admit:  New  York,  May  24; 
New  England,  June  14;  Maine,  July  5;  Genesee,  Aug.  2;  Canada,  Aug.  23; 
Pittsburg,  Sept.  21 

The  object  of  this  request  is  to  enable  me  to  attend  those  Conferences 
next  year,  which  I  hope  to  do  if  health  and  strength  are  preserved;  and  con- 
formably to  the  above  plan  I  am  persuaded  it  may  be  done. 

Most  respectfully  yours,  etc.  W.  McKendree.* 

The  proper  supervision  of  the  work  is  weighing  on  the 
Senior  Bishop's  mind.  To  this  epistle,  the  Bishops  addressed 
returned  the  following  reply: 


*  Unpublished  letter:  original  in  the  author's  possession. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  1824-18 28. 


393 


Philadelphia,  April  20,  1826. 

To  Bishop  McKendree: 

We  have  received  yours  of  yesterday,  and  are  of  opinion  that  the  plan 
will  be  impracticable.  For,  instead  of  the  Philadelphia  Conference  being 
fixed  at  a  later  date,  we  shall  have,  by  degrees,  to  bring  it  earlier,  in  order 
to  have  it  meet  in  1828  before  the  time  of  the  General  Conference,  and  give 
time  to  get  to  Pittsburg.  As  it  respects  the  other  Conferences  it  is  im- 
possible for  us  to  determine  at  what  time  they  can  be  held  till  we  know- 
where  they  will  be,  on  account  of  the  distances;  but  we  think  the  time  at 
which  you  have  fixed  some  of  them  would  be  too  short  for  the  distance  ;  and 
with  due  respect  we  would  suggest  the  opinion  that  in  your  state  of  debility 
it  would  be  impossible  for  you  to  reach  them  all.  Again  the  change  of 
time,  in  some  of  the  Conferences,  would  be  so  great  we  fear  it  would  give 
them  serious  dissatisfaction.  The  New  York  Conference,  in  1828,  will 
probably  have  to  be  about  the  ist  of  April;  because  the  superintendents  and 
delegates  cannot  return  from  Pittsburg  till  too  late  in  the  summer  for  that 
Conference. 

Respecting  a  change,  so  as  to  enable  us  to  visit  all  the  southern  and  west- 
ern Conferences  befoi  e  the  General  Conference,  it  seems  to  us  to  be  impossi- 
ble that  our  health  would  admit  of  it. 

With  respect  to  the  delegate,  though  we  cannot  agree  to  your  nomina- 
tion, nor  you  to  ours,  we  shall  be  glad  to  meet  you  and  Bp.  Soule  as  soon  as 
our  business  will  admit  of  it,  and  see  if  we  can  fix  on  some  other  man  in 
whom  we  can  all  be  agreed.  Or,  if  this  cannot  be  done,  we  would  suggest 
the  propriety  of  writing  to  the  British  Conference. 

Affectionately  yours,  etc.,  Enoch  George, 

E.  Hedding.* 

Thus,  however  valid  these  objections  to  Bishop  McKen- 
dree's  proposal  may  have  been  in  detail,  the  infirm  Senior 
received  little  encouragement  to  visit  the  Northern  Confer- 
ences, under  the  supervision  of  his  junior  colleagues;  and 
as  for  the  exchange  with  Roberts  and  Soule,  it  was  impossi- 
ble that  the  health  of  George  and  Hedding  would  admit  of 
it.  It  may  have  been  their  misfortune,  and  not  their  fault, 
but  in  either  case  Bishop  McKendree' s  plan  for  such  an 
episcopal  itinerancy  as  would  make  the  superintendency 
truly  general,  failed,  and  great  hurt  came  to  the  Church 
thereby.  A  letter  of  inquiry  which  the  two  Bishops  ad- 
dressed to  the  Senior  in  New  York,  serves  to  show  that 
their  testimony  about  the  "Bishops'  meeting"  agrees  with 
his,  and,  for  that  reason,  it  is  presented  here: 


*  Original  letter  (unpublished)  in  author's  possession. 


394  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


May  12,  1826. 

To  Bishop  McKendree, 

Dear  Sir:  We  desire  respectfully  to  inquire  if  you  recollect  the  following 
particulars  in  our  interviews  at  Philadelphia  on  the  subject  of  a  delegate  for 
England. 

First,  That  you  proposed  Brother  Capers,  we  objected  on  account  of  his 
holding  slaves.    Then  we  proposed  Brothers  Fisk  and  Cooper. 

Secondly,  But  in  another  conversation,  when  it  was  asked  in  what  sense 
the  vote  of  the  Genei-al  Conference  was  to  be  understood,  E.  George  stated 
that  he  did  not  understand  the  vote  to  be  imperative;  E.  Hedding  stated  that 
he  supposed  the  vote  laid  the  Superintendents  under  an  obligation  to  send 
one,  but  that  he,  for  his  part,  would  rather  risk  the  responsibility  of  sending 
none,  than  that  of  sending  any  brother  who  held  slaves. 

Thirdly,  That  in  our  note  addressed  to  you,  in  answer  to  one  we  received 
of  you,  we  proposed  another  meeting  to  see  if  you  could  nominate  some  oth- 
er brother  in  whom  we  could  all  agree. 

An  answer  to  these  inquiries  will  much  oblige,  dear  sir, 

Yours  affectionately, 

E.  Hedding, 
E.  George.* 

Bishop  McKendree's  answer  may  be  seen  in  the  pages  of 
his  biographer.  It  is  a  somewhat  fuller  reproduction  of  his 
original  notes  of  the  Bishops'  meeting;  but  adds  that  Bish- 
op Soule  had  returned  to  Baltimore  after  the  last  episcopal 
interview,  and  that,  from  the  tenor  of  their  note,  the  Senior 
had  expected  to  be  informed  when  their  *'  business  would 
admit  "  of  another  meeting,  but  that  he  had  received  no  fur- 
ther information  on  the  subject.  He  concludes,  **  I  judge 
it  most  prudent  for  me  to  decline  any  further  agency  in  the 
case,  not  with  a  design  to  prevent  the  appointment,  but  for 
you  to  manage  the  business  as  you  may  think  best."  t 

Our  authorities  commonly  locate  this  "  Bishops'  meeting  " 
in  Baltimore. t  From  Bishop  McKendree's  notes  it  appears 
that  this  was  the  place  appointed,  and  that  McKendree, 
Roberts,  and  Soule  came  together  there.  Bishop  Roberts' 
engagements  did  not  permit  him  to  go  to  Philadelphia,  but 
he  concurred  in  the  nomination  of  Capers,  and  Bishops  Mc- 
Kendree and  Soule  agreed  to  go  on  to  Philadelphia,  where 
it  was  known  they  would  fall  in  with  Bishops  George  and 

*The  original  is  in  Bishop  Hedding's  handwriting. 
■j-Paine's  McKendree,  II.  387-390. 

J  So  Clark,  Life  of  Hedding,  p.  324;  McTyeire,  History,  p.  575. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  1824.-182S. 


395 


Hedding  at  the  session  of  the  Philadelphia  Conference. 
The  business  of  the  Annual  Conference  seems  to  have  taken 
precedence  with  Bishop  George,  and  the  interviews  were  un- 
satisfactory and  void  of  result.  The  next  year  (1827)  all  the 
Bishops  met;  four  of  them  retained  their  opinions  of  a  year 
before ;  Bishop  Roberts  amiably  refused  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion; and  the  appointment  of  a  delegate  to  England  went 
over  to  the  General  Conference  of  1828. 

The  biographers,  concerned  with  the  doings  of  single  Bish- 
ops only,  have  generally  failed  to  state  accurately  the  plan  of 
episcopal  visitation  actually  pursued,  and  have  apparently  not 
apprehended  how  dangerous  it  was  to  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  Thus  Bishop  Paine  declares  that  at  the  close  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1824,  it  was  agreed  that  *'  for  the 
first  two  years  Bishops  Roberts  and  Soule  were  to  attend  the 
Western  and  Southern  Conferences,  and  Bishops  George 
and  Hedding  the  Eastern  and  Northern,  and  to  exchange 
their  fields  of  labor  for  the  ensuing  two  years — thus  en- 
abling each  of  them  to  attend  every  Conference  before  the 
next  General  Conference."  *  Well  had  it  been  for  the  fu- 
ture of  Methodism  had  such  an  exchange  taken  place,  and 
had  such  exchanges  become  the  permanent  policy  of  the 
Bishops.  We  have  seen  how  earnestly  and  persistently  the 
Senior  Bishop  strove  to  effect  it,  foreseeing  the  evils  which 
must  afflict  the  Church  from  such  a  sectionalizing  of  the 
Bishops.  These  evils  began  to  appear  at  Philadelphia,  in 
the  hopeless  division  of  the  Bishops  over  the  appointment  of 
a  delegate.  Roberts  and  Soule,  apparently,  acquiesced  in 
the  plan  of  McKendree ;  at  least  there  is  no  evidence  of  op- 
position on  their  part,  while  George  and  Hedding  pointedly 
declined  to  concur.  In  a  private  letter  to  Bishop  McKen- 
dree, written  at  New  York,  May  18,  1826,  Bishop  George 
thus  construes  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1824 
with  regard  to  the  visitation  of  the  Bishops  : 

As  to  visiting  all  the  Conferences  and  becoming  jointly  responsible,  it  is 
to  me  a  new  thought;  I  did  believe  that  the  General  Conference  gave  liber- 
ty to  the  Episcopacy  to  make  such  arrangements  as  would  meet  the  increase 


*Life  and  Times  of  McKendree,  II.  48. 


396  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


of  labor  without  its  becoming  insupportable.  I  am  sincere  when  I  say  that 
I  did  think  such  arrangements  were  made  at  the  time  the  Episcopal  commit- 
tee met  at  Baltimore,  and  that  they  were  made  for  four  years;  and  being 
thus  impressed  at  the  time,  1  made  all  arrangements  to  meet  that  plan.  .  .  . 
And  I  do  sincerely  think  that  I  have  neither  strength  of  body  or  mind,  at 
present,  to  undertake  a  continental  superintendency.* 

Thus  Bishop  George  regarded  the  resolution  of  the  Epis- 
copal committee,  adopted  in  1824  by  the  General  Conference, 
as  decisive,  and  had  not  so  much  as  contemplated  any  other 
work  for  the  quadrennium  than  the  northern  circuit  of  Con- 
ferences: the  new  conditions,  in  his  judgment,  necessitated 
a  localized  episcopacy,  a  quasi  diocese,  and  he  decided  to 
act  accordingly. 

Bishop  Clark  says  of  the  division  of  episcopal  labor  in 
1824  that  it  "  was  agreed  upon  for  the  year :  Bishops  Rob- 
erts and  Soule  were  to  take  the  supervision  of  the  Baltimore 
and  Kentucky  Conferences,  and  all  the  Conferences  south 
and  southwest  of  them;  while  Bishops  George  and  Hedding 
were  to  take  the  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg  Conferences, 
and  all  the  Conferences  north  and  northeast  of  them."t 
What  a  division  of  the  work,  when  it  became  practically 
permanent!  With  the  exception  of  a  single  year,  when 
Bishop  Hedding  took  the  southern  circuit,  as  we  have  seen, 
it  became  altogether  permanent,  so  far  as  the  subject  of  Dr. 
Clark's  biography  is  concerned;  yet  year  after  year  he  re- 
cords the  treadmill  round  of  his  hero — Philadelphia,  New 
York,  New  England,  Genesee,  (until  1828,  Canada,)  Pitts- 
burg, Ohio,  with  small  variations,  as  new  Conferences  were 
created  in  these  regions — without  detecting  any  thing  re- 
markable in  this  sectionalizing  of  a  Methodist  Bishop,  or 
noting  its  bearings  on  the  future  of  the  Church. J 

After  attending  the  Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  Confer- 
ences, Bishop  McKendree  took  the  southern  circuit  with 
Roberts  and  Soule  in  the  autumn  of  1824,  attending  the  Ken- 

*  Original  letter  in  possession  of  the  author. 
I  Life  and  Times  of  Hedding,  p.  306. 

X  I  have  carefully  traced  all  of  Bishop  Hedding's  tours  in  Dr.  Clark's  biog- 
raphy, pp.  305-586,  and  the  above  is  a  sufficiently  accurate  generalization  of 
the  facts. 


397 


tucky,  Missouri,  and  Tennessee  Conferences.  At  last  the  su- 
perannuated senior,  weighed  down  by  increasing  infirmities, 
is  compelled  to  relinquish  work,  in  a  letter,  written  at  Nash- 
ville, Dec.  12,  1824,  and  addressed  to  Bishops  Roberts  and 
Soule.  But  in  1825  he  is  at  it  again,  attending  the  Ken- 
tucky Conference  with  Bishop  Roberts,  September  22; 
thence  he  crosses  the  Cumberland  and  Alleghany  mountains, 
and  attends  a  quarterly  meeting  at  Lynchburg,  Va.,  with 
Hezekiah  G.  Leigh;  from  there  he  goes  to  the  Baltimore, 
Philadelphia,  and  Genesee  Conferences;  comes  back  to  the 
Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  Conferences  *  in  the  spring  of 
1826,  and  attempts  to  impress  upon  the  other  Bishops  his 
views  of  a  "  continental  superintendency,"  illustrated  by  such 
an  example  !  In  the  winter  and  spring  of  1826-7,  he  attends 
the  South  Carolina,  Virginia,  Baltimore,  and  Philadelphia 
Conferences.  In  May  he  returns  westward,  visiting  for  the 
third  time  his  beloved  Wyandotte  missions  in  Ohio,  and 
again  reaching  the  session  of  the  Kentucky  Conference  at 
Versailles,  in  October,  1827.  In  March,  1828,  he  sets  out 
for  the  General  Conference  at  Pittsburg.  Thus  throughout 
the  quadrennium,  1824-1828,  the  irrepressible  and  indefati- 
gable Senior,  presumably  superannuated,  was  the  only  epis- 
copal link  binding  together  the  North  and  the  South:  the 
health  of  George  and  Hedding  did  not  admit  of  their  coming 
south,  and  Roberts  and  Soule  could  not  exchange  without 
their  consent.  It  was  bad  enough  that  the  General  Confer- 
ence and  the  Annual  Conferences  should  be  split  into  two 
nearly  equal  parts  on  a  constitutional  issue  and  by  a  sectional 
line;  it  had  its  dangers  that  Soule  and  Hedding  should  have 
been  put  into  office  by  opposed  sectional  votes ;  it  was  too  bad 
that  the  episcopacy  could  not  harmonize  in  their  first  formal 
conference ;  it  was  perhaps  worst  of  all,  in  its  effects  on  the 

♦Bishop  Paine  adds  the  New  York  (II.  82) ;  but  in  this  he  is  probably  mis- 
taken. Bishop  McKendree  wrote  Bishop  George  in  the  spring  of  1826  that 
he  had  not  seen  him  for  two  years.  George  and  Hedding  presided  alternate- 
ly at  the  New  York  Conference;  but  Hedding  was  alone  at  Philadelphia 
and  Genesee,  except  as  Bishop  McKendree  aided  him.  See  Clark's  Hed- 
ding, pp.  320-332. 


398 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


mind  of  the  Church,  that  the  effective  Bishops  should  have 
been  permanently  sectionalized  in  their  superintendency. 
Perhaps  better  things  w^ere  designed  at  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1828.  The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy, 
adopted  by  the  Conference,  recommended  that  "  each  of 
our  bishops  should,  if  practicable,  be  known  in  each  of  the 
Annual  Conferences  once  in  four  years. ' '  But  Bishop  George 
died  in  the  autumn  of  that  year,  on  his  way  south  to  hold  the 
Holston  Conference.  As  late  as  1831,  when  Hedding  took 
the  southern  circuit  for  the  first  and  only  time,  Soule  first 
appeared  in  his  native  New  England  in  his  episcopal  charac- 
ter. By  common  consent,  each  section  was  entitled  to  a 
bishop  in  1832,  and  Andrew  and  Emory  were  chosen  by 
handsome  majorities  on  the  first  ballot.  This  indicated  a 
spirit  of  mutual  conciliation ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  perpet- 
uated the  sectional  balance  and  division.  But  to  this  election 
little  importance  is  to  be  attached.  The  work  of  division  was 
accomplished  in  the  years  1820-1828.  During  that  period  it 
came  to  pass,  perhaps  before  many  of  the  active  participants 
were  awake  to  it,  that  the  line  of  division,  constitutional 
and  sectional,  had  been  run  through  the  Church,  separa- 
ting it,  in  all  but  name,  into  two  sharply  contrasted  Episcopal 
Methodisms.  He  who  hangs  his  theory  of  the  division  of 
the  Church  upon  the  slender  thread  of  the  accidents  of  an 
episcopal  matrimonial  alliance,  or  even  upon  the  difference 
of  civil  institutions.  North  and  South,  alone,  may  satisfy  him- 
self. But  his  proceeding  is  unhistorical.  The  preceding 
pages  have  been  written  to  little  purpose,  if  the  conviction 
is  not  forced  upon  the  mind  of  the  impartial  reader,  that  in 
this  troublous  period  of  1820-1828  the  work  of  division  was 
really  accomplished.  The  line,  like  a  thread  of  scarlet,  ran 
clearly  and  discernibly  through  the  General  Conference.  It 
ran,  openly  and  undisguisedly,  through  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences. It  ran  with  decent  concealment,  but  no  less 
certainly  and  fatally,  through  the  College  of  Bishops,  and 
was  intensified,  if  not  rendered  indelible,  by  their  sectional 
administration.    The  line  ran  through  the  Church,  and  it 


The  Fourih  and  Fifth,  1824-18 28.  399 

was  only  an  accident  of  time,  when  the  strain  should  come 
which  should  cause  the  already  severed  sections  visibly  to  fall 
apart. 

Bishop  McKendree  did  all  he  could  to  make  the  superin- 
tendency  general.  In  his  person  it  was  general,  notwithstand- 
ing his  knowledge  of  his  own  unpopularity  in  the  Northern 
Conferences.  Neither  this,  nor  the  discouragement  of  his 
episcopal  colleagues  at  the  North,  could  deter  the  venerable 
man,  tottering  under  the  weight  of  seventy  years,*  from  the 
exercise  of  the  general  superintendency  prescribed  by  the 
constitution  of  the  Church.  Upon  his  colleagues  he  sought 
to  enforce  the  same;  but  in  this  he  failed.  No  doubt  Bish- 
ops George  and  Hedding  were  sincere — entirely  so — in  their 
expressed  objection  to  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Capers,  as 
the  fraternal  delegate  to  England.  But  the  embarrassments 
— the  ecclesiastical  politics,  if  the  phrase  be  admissible — of 
years  were  behind  it  all.  Hedding  had  never  itinerated  in 
the  South,  and  knew  nothing  of  the  pedestal  of  preeminence 
upon  which  Capers  stood  by  universal  acclaim.  He  knew 
that  Capers  belonged  to  the  constitutional  party;  he  knew 
how  he  voted  in  1824.  Soule's  relations  to  Fisk  might  be 
described  in  similar  terms.  What  more  natural  than  that  the 
sectionalized  episcopacy — Roberts  and  Soule  on  the  one 
hand,  and  George  and  Hedding  on  the  other — should  have 
fastened  on  these  eminent  men,  in  their  respective  sections 
of  the  Church,  for  this  honorable  and  responsible  post? 
The  issue  once  joined  could  not  be  settled. 

The  Fifth  Delegated  General  Conference  met  for  the 
first  time  west  of  the  Alleghanies,  at  Pittsburg,  Penn.,  May 
I,  1828.  Bishops  McKendree,  George,  Roberts,  Soule, 
and  Hedding  were  all  present:  the  Senior  Bishop  opened 
the  session,  as  he  had  done  in  every  case  since  the  death  of 
Asbury.  It  was  composed  of  177  delegates  elect,  of  whom 
125  were  present  at  the  opening  session. f    In  the  episcopal 

*He  was  seventy  in  the  summer  of  1827,  and  lived  to  be  seventy-eight. 
■j-Paine's  McKendree,  II.  106.    The  Journal  (I.  342,  343)  if  I  have  count- 
ed correctly,  gives  176  delegates  elect.    Clark's  figures  are  approximate. 


400 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


address,  the  Bishops  regretted  their  failure  to  appoint  a  del- 
egate to  England,  and,  without  stating  the  cause  or  the 
names  which  had  been  canvassed,  all  of  which,  it  would  ap- 
pear from  the  election  which  followed,  was  sufficiently  well 
known,  they  suggested  that  the  General  Conference  should 
elect  such  a  fraternal  messenger.  Accordingly  an  election 
was  held  for  this  purpose.  On  the  first  ballot  William  Ca- 
pers had  75  and  Wilbur  Fisk,  67;  but  scattering  votes  de- 
feated a  choice.  On  the  second  ballot  there  were  158  votes, 
making  80  necessary  to  a  choice ;  Fisk  had  72  and  Capers  82, 
and  was  elected.  He  discharged  the  duties  of  his  mission 
with  distinguished  success.* 

The  presiding  elder  controversy  which  had  so  long  and 
so  dangerously  agitated  the  Church  was  finally  disposed  of 
in  the  following  manner: 

John  Early  moved,  and  it  was  seconded,  that  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Revisal  and  Unfinished  Business,  in  relation  to  the  suspended  resolutions 
and  the  election  of  presiding  elders,  be  taken  up  and  considered.  The  mo- 
tion prevailed. 

William  Winans  moved,  William  Capers  seconded,  that  the  subject  of 
the  report  be  disposed  of  by  adopting  the  following  resolution,  as  a  substi- 
tute for  the  resolution  which  was  laid  over  as  unfinished  business,  viz.: — 

Resolved,  etc..  That  the  resolutions  commonly  called  the  suspended  reso- 
lutions, rendering  the  presiding  elders  elective,  etc.,  and  which  were  re- 
ferred to  this  conference  by  the  last  General  Conference  as  unfinished  busi- 
ness, and  reported  to  us  at  this  conference,  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  re- 
scinded and  made  void.  Carried.^ 

Nevertheless  on  the  next  day,  D.  Ostrander  and  T.  Mer- 
ritt  bravely  brought  forward  the  old  measure;  but  it  was 
[promptly  tabled,  apparently  without  debate. t 
j  At  this  General  Conference  the  first  formal  amendment  of 
jthe  Constitution  by  the  process  prescribed  in  the  Constitu- 
^tion  itself,  was  initiated.  On  the  afternoon  of  May  15,  Wil- 
'bur  Fisk  submitted  the  following: 

Resolved,  etc.,  i.  That  this  General  Conference  respectfully  suggest  to 
the  several  annual  conferences  the  propriety  of  recommending  to  the  next 
General  Conference  so  to  alter  and  amend  the  rules  of  our  Discipline,  by 
which  the  General  Conference  is  restricted  and  limited  in  its  legislative 
powers,  commonly  called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  number  six,  as  to  read 


*  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  339.   ^  Ibid.,\.  y^i.    \  Ibid.,\.  y^i. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  182^-1828.  401 

thus:  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendation  of  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  annual  conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the 
General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  re- 
strictions; or  whenever  such  alterations  shall  have  been  first  recommended 
by  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  then,  so  soon  as  three-fourths  of 
said  annual  conferences  shall  have  concurred  with  such  recommendations, 
such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  take  effect. 

Resolved,  etc.,  2.  That  it  is  hereby  made  the  duty  of  the  several  bishops 
in  their  tours  to  the  different  annual  conferences,  to  carry  around  and  lay 
before  any  such  annual  conference  which  they  may  visit  respectively  any 
address  or  resolution,  or  other  papers  of  a  decent  character,  which  this  Gen- 
eral Conference  or  any  annual  conference  may  request  them  so  to  carry 
around  to  obtain  the  opinion  or  decision  of  said  annual  conferences  thereon. 
Signed,  Wilbur  Fisk,  Joseph  A.  Merrill.* 

May  21,  Fisk's  resolutions  were  called  up  on  motion  of 
William  Winans.  A  division  of  the  matter  was  called  for, 
and  the  first  resolution  was  adopted,  with  some  alterations 
which  had  probably  been  made  by  the  original  movers, 
with  consent,  to  ob\'iate  objections  that  had  come  to  their 
knowledge  while  the  measure  was  awaiting  action.  It  now 
read  as  follows : 

That  this  General  Conference  respectfully  suggest  to  the  several  An- 
nual Conferences  the  propriety  of  recommending  to  the  next  General  Con- 
ference so  to  alter  and  amend  the  rules  of  our  Discipline,  by  which  the  Gener- 
al Conference  is  restricted  and  limited  in  its  powers  to  make  rules  and  reg- 
ulations for  our  Church,  commonly  called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  as  to 
make  the  proviso  at  the  close  of  said  Restrictive  Rules,  No.  6,  read  thus: 
Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendations  of  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the 
General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  re- 
strictions except  the  first  "Article." 

This  is  an  improvement  in  some  particulars:  for  Fisk's 
phrase  "legislative  powers,"  the  practically  synonymous 
language  of  the  Constitution,  "  powers  to  make  rules  and 
regulations  for  our  Church,"  is  substituted;  the  capital  ex- 
ception of  the  first  restrictive  rule,  which  protects  the  stand- 
ards of  doctrine,  is  added;  but  Fisk's  provision  for  the  in- 
itiation of  constitutional  changes  in  the  General  as  well  as  in 
the  Annual  Conferences  is  omitted.  The  General  Confer- 
ence of  1828,  though  really  initiating  such  a  change,  care- 


26 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  331,  332. 


402 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


fully  respected,  in  the  phraseology  of  its  action,  the  exclu- 
sive constitutional  prerogative  of  the  Annual  Conferences: 
"This  General  Conference  respectfully  suggests  to  the  sev- 
eral Annual  Conferences  the  propriety  of  recommending  to 
the  next  General  Conference,"  etc.  There  was  evidently 
dissatisfaction  with  the  shape  into  which  the  measure  had 
gotten;  the  vote  by  which  it  had  been  adopted  was  recon- 
sidered, and  it  was  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  three, 
of  which  Fisk  was  chairman.*  May  22,  Fisk  made  his  re- 
port and  it  was  adopted  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  respectfully  suggest  to  the  sev- 
eral Annual  Conferences  the  propriety  of  recommending  to  the  next  Gen- 
eral Conference  so  to  alter  and  amend  the  rules  of  our  Discipline,  by  which 
the  General  Conference  is  restricted  in  its  powers  to  make  rules  and  regu- 
lations for  the  Church,  commonly  called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  as  to  make 
the  proviso  at  the  close  of  said  Restrictive  Rules,  No.  6,  read  thus: 

Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  concurrent  recommendation  of 
three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  who 
shall  be  present  and  vote  on  such  recommendation,  then  a  majority  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of 
such  regulations,  excepting  the  first  article. 

And,  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  have  first  been 
recommended  by  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  so  soon  as  three- 
fourths  of  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences  shall  have  concurred,  as 
aforesaid,  with  such  recommendation,  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall 
take  effect.* 

This  final  form  well  illustrates  how  an  important  measure 
may  be  perfected  by  passing  without  haste  through  the  sev- 
eral stages  to  which  a  deliberative  assembly  may  subject  it: 
(i)  the  first  restrictive  rule,  which  protects  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church,  is  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  new 
method  of  constitutional  amendment;  (2)  Fisk's  original 
provision  for  initiation  of  constitutional  changes  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  is  restored;  and,  most  important  of  all,  (3) 
the  language  "three-fourths  of  all  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences" is  altered  to  "three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  who  shall  be  present  and 
vote."  The  original  provision  in  the  Constitution  of  1808 
put  it  in  the  power  of  a  single  small  Annual  Conference  to 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  346.    \Ibid..  I.  353,  354. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  1824-1828.  403 

defeat  the  will  of  the  remainder  of  the  Church;  and  Fisk's 
original  proposition  put  it  in  the  power  of  any  group  of  An- 
nual Conferences,  greater  than  one-fourth  of  the  whole 
number,  however  small  and  however  feeble  their  minorit}^ 
to  defeat  a  constitutional  change.  This  feature  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  1808  was  evidently  borrowed  from  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States;  and  Fisk,  at  first,  inadvertently 
retained  the  same  principle.  The  truth  is  that  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  bear  no  such  relation  to  the  Connec- 
tion as  the  several  states  bear  to  the  general  government  of 
the  Union.  The  number  and  extent  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences is  a  mere  accident,  mutable  at  the  will  of  any  General 
Conference.  The  Church  was  not  formed  by  their  amalga- 
mation; but  they  were  hewn  out  of  the  territory  and  the 
ministry  of  the  Church.  The  one  unbroken  traveling  Con- 
nection; the  undivided  body  of  itinerant  preachers — this, 
and  this  only,  was  the  original  or  primary  constituency 
which  gave  existence  to  the  Delegated  General  Conference, 
and  prescribed  the  Constitution  which  defines  its  powers. 
Afterwards,  in  both  Episcopal  Methodisms,  this  primal  body 
admitted  the  laity  to  a  share  of  the  government.  It  follows 
that  whether  the  majority  of  those  favoring  a  constitutional 
change  be  concentrated  in  one  Annual  Conference  or  be 
scattered  through  them  all,  their  will  should  prevail.  And 
for  this  the  measure  of  1828,  as  adopted,  provided.  The 
Annual  Conference  rightfully  ceased  to  be  in  any  sense  a 
constitutional  unit. 

Accordingly  in  the  General  Conference  of  1832  the  Com- 
mittee on  Itinerancy  reported  that  the  measure  submitted  in 
1828  had  been  approved  as  the  Constitution  required  by  all 
the  Annual  Conferences,  "  in  full  and  due  form,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Illinois,  where  we  find  some  want  in  the 
formality;  not  sufficient,  however,  in  the  judgment  of  your 
committee  to  alter  or  set  aside  the  principle."  The  entire 
Illinois  delegation  joined  in  a  written  assurance  to  the  Gener- 
al Conference  that  "  the  informality  arose  from  the  want  of 
information,  and  not  with  any  intention  to  embarrass  the  true 


404  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


design  of  the  said  resolution."  Thereupon  the  General 
Conference  unanimously  concurred.*  The  amendment 
then  adopted  stands  unaltered  in  the  DiscipUne  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  to  this  day;  so  it  stands,  verbatim, 
in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South : 
to  it  was  added,  by  the  constitutional  process,  in  1870,  the 
provision  for  the  so-called  veto  power  of  the  Bishops. 

The  question  is  often  asked,  Are  the  doctrinal  statements 
and  standards  of  Methodism  unchangeable?  It  is  true  that 
the  Discipline  nowhere  contains  any  express  provision  for 
their  change ;  but  it  is  also  true  that  the  original  provision 
of  1808  has  never  been  abrogated  by  the  joint  action  of  the 
General  and  Annual  Conferences.  The  new  method  of 
constitutional  amendment  is  applicable  to  all  the  restrictions 
"  excepting  the  first  article."  While  the  legislators  of  1828- 
1832  may  not  have  thought  it  wise  to  suggest  the  mutability  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church  by  incorporating  in  the  Discipline 
a  prescribed  constitutional  process  for  their  alteration,  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1828  did  not  ask  the  Annual  Conferences 
to  vote  upon  the  abrogation  of  the  existing  constitutional 
method  provided  for  the  change  of  the  restrictive  rule  which 
guarded  the  doctrines  or  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Church : 
consequently,  the  original  method  of  constitutional  change, 
prescribed  in  1808  for  all  the  restrictive  rules,  by  which  such 
changes  depend  upon  the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the 
Annual  Conferences,  confirmed  by  a  majority  of  two-thirds 
in  the  succeeding  General  Conference,  is  still  applicable 
to  the  first  restrictive  rule,  and  could  be  constitutionally 
used  to  open  the  way  to  doctrinal  changes.  Other  methods 
have  been  suggested,  such  as  eliminating  by  the  constitu- 
tional process,  from  the  present  provision  for  amendment, 
the  words,  "excepting  the  first  article;  "  and  then,  by  a 
second  use  of  the  constitutional  method,  suspending  or  al- 
tering the  first  restrictive  rule.  But  this  is  of  doubtful  valid- 
ity. It  is  true  it  requires  the  General  and  Annual  Con- 
ferences to  give  the  constitutional  majorities  twice  over,  be- 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  377,  378,  382,  383. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  1824.-1828.  405 

fore  the  doctrines  can  be  touched,  and  thus  appears  doubly 
to  guard  them.  But,  in  reality,  could  these  majorities  be 
once  obtained,  it  would  hardly  be  difficult  to  have  them  re- 
peated by  the  same  constituencies.  The  facts  are  clear  and 
indisputable.  The  General  Conference  of  1808  ordained  a 
given  method  of  constitutional  amendment  for  all  the  re- 
strictive rules.  In  1828  the  General  Conference  asked  the 
Annual  Conferences  to  alter  this,  for  all  the  restrictions  ex- 
cept the  first.  It  was  done.  The  General  Conference  did 
not  ask  for  an)  change  in  the  method  prescribed  for  con- 
stitutionally amending  the  first  restriction.  The  Annual 
Conferences  did  not  have  any  such  proposition  before 
them.  Hence  the  original  prescription  of  1808  remains  in 
force. 

Four  years  after  the  division  of  territory  with  the  British 
Conference,  and  the  mutual  exchange  of  members,  Upper 
Canada,  in  1824,  was  constituted  an  Annual  Conference. 
And  in  1828  the  five  delegates  of  the  Canada  Conference 
were  in  their  seats  at  Pittsburg,  representing  nearly  10,000 
members.  But  a  petition  from  the  body  was  presented  by 
William  Ryerson,  praying  that  it  might  "  be  separated  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States."  The  petition 
was  referred  to  a  special  committee  consisting  of  Messrs. 
Bangs,  Bonney,  Pitman,  Paddock,  Bigelow,  and  Leach. 
May  12,  the  committee  reported;  but  "after  considerable 
discussion,  Wm.  Capers  moved  and  R.  Paine  seconded, 
that  the  motion  for  adopting  the  report  be  laid  on  the  table, 
and  that  the  report  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Friday 
next;"  and  this  motion  prevailed.  Friday,  May  16,  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  was  taken  up  as  ordered:  constitu- 
tional difficulties  appear  to  have  been  started  by  the  com- 
mittee, whose  report  does  not  appear  in  the  Journal.  Ca- 
pers, seconded  by  Hodges,  moved  to  amend  the  first  resolu- 
tion of  the  report  by  striking  out  the  words,  "  it  is  unconsti- 
tutional to  grant,"  and  inserting  in  Ueu,  "  as  well  as  that 
the  expediency  of  the  measure  does  not  certainly  appear, 


406  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


we  decline  granting."  The  Conference  adjourned  with  the 
Capers  amendment  pending.  The  next  day  Luckey  moved 
to  amend  the  Capers  amendment  so  as  to  read,  "  it  is  expe- 
dient to  grant,"  etc.;  but  the  Chair  ruled  that  this  motion 
could  not  then  be  acted  on;  and  the  original  resolution  of 
the  committee  was  taken  up.  Ostrander  moved  "to  strike 
out  the  first  clause  of  the  resolution,  which  says  that  the  sev- 
eral Annual  Conferences  have  not  recommended  it  to  the 
General  Conference,"  which  motion  was  lost.  The  Con- 
ference finally  adjourned  without  action  on  the  report. 
This  report  of  the  first  select  committee  seems  to  have  been 
an  unmanageable  document,  and  as  the  Conference,  after 
two  trials,  could  do  nothing  with  it,  it  is  not  recorded  in  the 
Journal.  Dr.  Bangs  says  that  "it  was  contended,  and  the 
committee  to  whom  it  was  first  referred  so  reported,  which 
report  was  approved  of  by  the  General  Conference,  that  we 
had  no  constitutional  right  to  set  off  the  brethren  in  Upper 
Canada  as  an  independent  body,"  etc.*  The  Doctor,  who 
was  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  is  no  doubt  correct  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  report ;  but  it  does  not  appear  from  the 
Journal  that  the  General  Conference  approved  it,  or  finally 
disposed  of  it  in  any  way.  Up  to  this  time  it  had  not  oc- 
curred to  any  one  that  the  Canada  Conference,  though  situ- 
ated in  a  foreign  country,  sustained  any  different  relation  to 
the  General  Conference  and  the  Connection,  from  that  occu- 
pied by  the  other  Annual  Conferences.  It  had  been  consti- 
tuted in  the  same  way;  it  exercised  its  prerogatives  under 
the  same  rules  and  regulations  which  defined  the  province 
and  duties  of  the  remaining  Annual  Conferences;  and  its 
delegates  represented  it  in  the  General  Conference,  elected 
like  those  of  other  Conferences.  But  this  Annual  Confer- 
ence was  before  the  General  Conference  with  a  petition  to 
be  erected  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connection,  which, 
for  various  reasons,  not  necessary  to  canvass  here,  it  was 
highly  desirable  to  grant.  At  this  juncture,  it  was,  appar- 
ently, that  Mr.  Emory  proposed  his  theory  of  a  voluntary 


*  Hist.  M.  E.  Church,  III.  390,  391. 


The  Fourth  and  Fifth,  1824-182S. 


compact  between  the  Canadians  and  the  Americans — "we 
had  offered  them  our  services,  and  they  had  accepted  them 
— and  therefore,  as  the  time  had  arrived  when  they  were  no 
longer  wiUing  to  receive  or  accept  of  our  labors  and  superin- 
tendence, they  had  a  perfect  right  to  request  us  to  withdraw 
our  ser\4ces,  and  we  the  same  right  to  withhold  them." 
"This  presented  the  subject,"  contmues  Dr.  Bangs,  "in  a 
new  and  very  clear  light."  *  That  it  was  new,  there  could 
be  little  question :  its  clearness  depends  somewhat  on  the  an- 
gle of  vision. 

However,  the  report  of  the  first  committee  having  come  to 
naught,  William  Ryerson,  on  behalf  of  the  Canadians,  sub- 
mitted, May  17,  a  preamble  and  series  of  resolutions,  based 
on  the  "voluntary  compact"  doctrine.  His  first  resolution 
was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  104  for  to  43  against,  as  follows : 

Resolved,  etc.,  i.  That  the  compact  existing  between  the  Canada  Annual 
Conference  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  be, 
and  hereby  is  dissolved  by  mutual  consent,  and  that  they  are  at  liberty  to 
form  themselves  into  a  separate  Church  establishment. 

Mr.  Ryerson's  remaining  resolutions,  four  in  number, 
were  referred  to  a  new  committee,  consisting  of  five  mem- 
bers, Messrs.  Emory,  Fisk,  Jones,  Waugh,  and  Paine. 
May  21,  the  report  of  this  able  committee  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  108  for  and  22  against.  Later,  Mr.  Emory  moved 
that  the  vote  by  which  Mr.  Ryerson's  resolution,  recited 
above,  had  been  adopted  should  be  reconsidered.  His  mo- 
tion prevailed,  and  the  resolution  was  rescinded.! 

By  some  oversight  this  report  as  adopted  was  not  insert- 
ed in  the  Journal  of  1828.  In  1832  Roszel  moved  its  inser- 
tion in  the  Journal  of  that  year,  and  it  so  appears,  as  follows : 

Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Confer- 
ence assembled,  that  whereas  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  has  heretofore  been  extended  over 
the  ministers  and  members  in  connection  with  said  Church  in  the  province 
of  Upper  Canada,  by  mutual  agreement,  and  by  the  consent  and  desire  of 
our  brethren  in  that  province;  and  whereas  this  General  Conference  is  sat- 

*Hi8t.  M.  E.  Church,  III.  391,  392;  Dr.  Emory's  Life  of  Bp.  Emory,  pp.  107,  108. 
fFor  all  the  above  proceedings  in  regard  to  Canada,  see  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  311,  312, 
3",  3»3.  33S,  336-338,  340.  346,  3S4- 


4o8 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


isfactorily  assured  that  our  brethren  in  the  said  province,  under  peculiar  and 
pressing  circumstances,  do  now  desire  to  organize  themselves  into  a  distinct 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  friendly  relations  with  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States,  therefore  be  it  resolved,  and  it  is  hereby 
resolved  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Conference 
assembled, 

1.  If  the  annual  conference  in  Upper  Canada  at  its  ensuing  session  or  any 
succeeding  session  previously  to  the  next  General  Conference,  shall  definite- 
ly determine  on  this  course,  and  elect  a  general  superintendent  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  that  province,  this  General  Conference  do  hereby 
authorize  any  one  or  more  of  the  general  superintendents  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Chvirch  in  the  United  States,  with  the  assistance  of  any  two  or 
more  elders,  to  ordain  such  general  superintendent  for  the  said  Church  in 
Upper  Canada,  provided  always,  that  nothing  herein  contained  be  contrary 
to  or  inconsistent  with  the  laws  existing  in  the  said  province;  and  provided 
that  no  such  general  superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
Upper  Canada,  or  any  of  his  successors  in  office,  shall  at  any  time  exercise 
any  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  whatever  in  any  part  of  the  United  States,  or 
of  the  territories  thereof;  and  provided  also,  that  this  article  shall  be  ex- 
pressly ratified  and  agreed  to  by  the  said  Canada  Annual  Conference,  before 
any  such  ordination  shall  take  place. 

2.  That  the  delegate  who  has  been  selected  at  this  General  Conference  to 
attend  the  ensuing  annual  conference  of  the  British  Wesleyan  Methodist 
Connection  be,  and  hereby  is,  instructed  to  express  to  that  body  the  earnest 
and  afiectionate  desire  of  this  General  Conference  that  the  arrangement 
made  with  that  connection  in  relation  to  the  labors  of  their  missionaries  in 
Upper  Canada  may  still  be  maintained  and  observed. 

3.  That  our  brethren  and  friends,  ministers  or  others  in  Upper  Canada 
shall,  at  all  times,  at  their  request,  be  furnished  with  any  of  our  books  and 
periodical  publications  on  the  same  terms  with  those  by  which  our  agents 
are  regulated  in  furnishing  them  in  the  United  States,  and  until  there  shall 
be  an  adjustment  of  any  claims  which  the  Canada  Church  may  name.  On 
this  connection  tlie  Book  Agents  shall  divide  to  the  said  Church  an  equal 
proportion  of  any  annual  dividend  which  may  be  made  from  the  Book  Con- 
cern to  the  several  annual  conferences  respectively ;  provided  that  however 
the  aforesaid  dividend  shall  be  apportioned  to  the  Canada  Church  only  as 
long  as  they  may  continue  to  support  and  patronize  our  Book  Concern  as  in 
the  past.    Respectfully  submitted  as  agreed.  W.  Fisk,  Chairman. 

Pittsburg,  May  26,  1828.* 

The  parallelisms  between  this  and  a  later  division  of  the 
Church  we  need  not  now  point  out.  The  contrast  between 
this  peaceful  separation  and  the  stormy  departures  of  the 
two  African  Churches  and  of  the  Methodist  Protestants  and 
the  Wesleyans  is  delightful.    We  can  conceive,  also,  of  a 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  406,  407. 


The  Fourth  mid  Fifth,  1824.-1828. 


technical  definition  by  which  this  separation  of  the  Cana- 
dians might  be  styled  a  "  secession,"  since  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  is  expressly  based  on  the  Canadian  in- 
itiative ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  not  aware  that  this 
hard  and  ugly  word  has  ever  been  applied  to  it.  Bishop 
Hedding  presided  at  the  last  session  of  the  Canada  Confer- 
-ence  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  After  the  usual 
business  of  such  a  body  had  been  transacted,  resolutions 
were  adopted  declaring  the  connection  of  the  Conference 
with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
dissolved,  and  organizing  an  independent  Church  in  Canada. 
Bishop  Hedding  thereupon  vacated  the  chair.  The  next 
year  he  attended  as  a  visitor,  and  ordained  the  first  elders 
and  deacons  of  the  new  Church. 

The  "voluntary  compact"  doctrine,  upon  which  was 
ostensibly  predicated  the  action  of  the  General  Conference 
in  providing  for  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America — not  the  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,"  as  the  first  resolution 
unhistorically  recites — was  at  best  a  legal  fiction,  invented 
on  second  thought  to  meet  scruples  started  at  the  moment. 
So  little  did  it  accord  with  the  previous  status  of  the  Canadians, 
that  it  had  not  occurred  to  them  as  a  possible  basis  for  their 
petition  to  "be  separated  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States."  It  may  have  been  quite  natural  for  Canadians  to 
employ  this  false  title  of  the  Church,  especially  in  view  of 
the  object  of  their  petition;  but  how  the  committee  could 
use  it,  is  strange.  The  able  William  Ryerson,  who  conduct- 
ed the  Canadian  negotiation,  promptly  accepted  the  newly 
suggested  basis,  since  the  Canadian  aim  was  simply  to  secure 
the  fact  and  advantages  of  jurisdictional  separation.  Since 
both  parties  recognized  these  advantages,  it  was  easy  to  ef- 
fect the  division.  Of  this  action  of  1828,  it  may  be  remarked, 
as  above  (p.  353)  of  the  action  of  1820,  that  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  it  substantially  differs  from  that  of  1844. 

There  is  little  else  in  the  action  of  the  Conference  of  1828 
that  demands  attention  here:  the  body  adjourned  May  24. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 


THE  SIXTH  AND  SEVENTH  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFER- 
ENCES, 1832  AND  1836:  CONCLUSION. 

THE  Sixth  Delegated  General  Conference  met  at  Phila- 
delphia, May  I,  1832,  and  was  composed  of  about  two 
hundred  and  twenty-five  delegates,  representing  nineteen 
Conferences.  No  less  than  six  of  the  future  Bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  were  among  its  mem- 
bers: James  O.  Andrew,  elected  at  this  time;  William  Ca- 
pers, Robert  Paine,  Henry  B.  Bascom,  Hubbard  H.  Kava- 
naugh,  and  John  Early. 

The  membership  of  the  General  Conference  was  becom- 
ing too  large.  This  Conference  unanimously  recommended 
that  the  ratio  of  representation  be  one  in  fourteen,  and,  in 
addition  to  the  constitutional  amendment  previously  noticed, 
recommended,  also  by  a  unanimous  vote,  an  amendment 
which  recognizes  the  principles  of  fractional  representation 
and  that  no  Annual  Conference  shall  be  without  representa- 
tion ;  all  of  which  was  concurred  in  by  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences as  follows: 

Resolved,  2.  That  the  Second  Article  of  the  Restrictive  Rules  be  so  al- 
tered as  to  read:  "They  shaH  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative 
for  every  fourteen  members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less 
number  than  one  for  every  thirty;  provided,  nevertheless,  than  when  there 
shall  be,  in  any  Annual  Conference,  a  fraction  of  two-thirds  of  the  number 
which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation,  such  Annual  Conference 
shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such  fraction;  and  provided, 
also,  that  no  Conference  shall  be  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  two  delegates."  * 

At  the  Conference  of  1836,  on  motion  of  John  Early,  the 
ratio  of  representation  was  changed  to  one  in  twenty-one — 
so  rapid  was  the  increase  in  the  ministry  and  membership  of 
the  Church. 

The  Committee  on  Episcopacy,  in  the  eighth  item  of 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  402. 

(410) 


The  Sixth  and  Seventh,  j8j2-i8j6 :  Conclusion.  411 


their  report,  said  that,  considering  the  great  extent  of  the 
work,  "the  committee  deem  it  inexpedient  to  require  each 
of  our  bishops  to  travel  throughout  the  whole  of  their  exten- 
sive charges  during  the  recess  of  the  General  Conference," 
etc.  As  this  action  was  somewhat  ambiguous,  the  bishops. 
May  28,  asked  for  an  explanation  by  vote  of  the  Conference, 
without  debate,  in  answer  to  the  following  question: 

Was  it  the  intention  of  the  General  Conference,  by  the  resolution  above 
alluded  to,  simply  to  relieve  the  bishops  from  the  influence  of  the  resolution 
passed  at  the  last  General  Conference  on  the  same  subject,  and  to  leave  them 
now  at  liberty  on  their  joint  and  several  responsibility  to  make  such  arrange- 
ments among  themselves  for  the  entire  administration,  and  for  the  visitation 
of  the  Annual  Conferences  as  they  shall  judge  most  conducive  to  the  gen- 
eral good;  and  without  designing  to  give  any  direction  or  advice  whether 
it  be  or  be  not  expedient  for  each  of  the  bishops,  in  the  course  of  the  four 
years,  to  visit  each  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  should  they  themselves  find 
itoonvenient  and  practicable,  and  judge  it  for  the  general  good  so  to  do?* 

The  Conference  responded  in  the  affirmative.  Tuesday, 
May  22,  the  episcopal  election  had  resulted  in  the  choice  of 
James  Osgood  Andrew  and  John  Emory,  the  former  receiv- 
ing 140  and  the  latter  135  votes,  out  of  223,  on  the  first  bal- 
lot, t 

The  Conference  adjourned,  Monday  evening.  May  28. 
The  closing  session  was  presided  over  by  Bishop  Emory.  It 
was  the  only  time  he  ever  occupied  the  chair  in  a  General 
Conference;  but,  amid  the  rush  and  confusion,  his  presi- 
dency was  distinguished  by  perfect  coolness  and  self-pos- 
session, promptness  and  impartiality.  "  It  was  the  most 
harmonious  and  conservative  session,"  says  Bishop  Paine, 
"  held  since  the  organization  of  the  delegated  body  in  1808." 
It  was  the  last  General  Conference  at  which  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree  was  present, — a  peaceful  close  after  the  storms  of 
his  later  episcopate.  "  Leaning  on  his  staff,  his  once  tall 
and  manly  form  now  bent  with  age  and  infirmity,  his  eyes 
suffused  with  tears,  his  voice  faltering  with  emotion,  he  ex- 
claimed, '  Let  all  things  be  done  without  strife  or  vain- 
glory, and  try  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond 


*  Gen.  Conf .  Journals,  I.  419,  420,    |  /*rV.,  I.  401 . 


412 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


of  peace.  My  brethren  and  children,  love  one  another.' 
Then  spreading  forth  his  trembling  hands,"  continues  Mr. 
Larrabee,  "  and  raising  his  eyes  to  heaven,  he  pronounced, 
in  faltering  and  affectionate  accents,  the  apostoUc  benedic- 
tion." As  he  left  the  house,  the  General  Conference  rose 
and  stood  until  his  tottering  form  disappeared.  If  Asbury 
was  the  Moses,  McKendree  was  the  Joshua  of  our  Israel: 
this  was  his  last  survey  of  the  heads  of  the  tribes,  and  his 
farewell  to  the  assembled  elders. 

The  Seventh  Delegated  General  Conference  assembled 
in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  Monday,  May  2,  1836,  with  all  the 
Bishops — Roberts,  Soule,  Hedding,  and  Andrew — present, 
and  with  the  delegates  of  twenty-two  Annual  Conferences  in 
their  seats.  For  the  first  time  a  Judiciary  Committee  was 
appointed,  on  motion  of  Nathan  Bangs.  Its  functions  were 
thus  defined  in  the  motion, — "  to  whom  may  be  referred  all 
appeals  or  complaints  of  any  character  against  the  acts  and 
doings  of  an  Annual  Conference,"  and  "to  report  whether, 
in  their  opinion,  the  complainants  are  legally  entitled  to  be 
heard,"  etc.* 

From  time  to  time,  there  are  traces  of  the  primitive  Epis- 
copalianism  of  our  Methodist  fathers  in  the  Journals.  A 
resolution  was  adopted  instructing  the  Committee  on  Re- 
visal  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  introducing  a  rule  into 
the  Discipline  for  the  reception  of  ordained  ministers  from 
other  Churches,  by  which  it  should  be  first  ascertained, 
"  whether  his  ordination  will  be  considered  valid,  especially 
those  who  hold  to  Presbyterian  ordination."  On  the  last 
day  of  the  session,  it  was  agreed,  on  motion  of  John  Early, 
"  that  the  Bishops  be  requested  to  select  some  suitable  and 
competent  person  to  prepare  for  publication  a  vindication  of 
our  Episcopal  ordination."  In  1824,  Roszel  had  moved  that 
when  a  minister  "  has  been  regularly  ordained  by  a  bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  such  ordination  shall 
be,  and  hereby  is  considered  valid  "t  It  is  not  intended  to 
undertake  any  defense  of  the  principles  implied  in  these  mo- 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  I.  433.     ■\Ibid.,  I.  271,  441,  497. 


The  Sixth  and  Seventh,  i8j2-i8j6 :  Conclusion.  413 


tions :  they  are  introduced  simply  to  indicate  how  long  the 
so-called  High-church  principles  of  the  first  Methodists  Hn- 
gered  in  American  Methodism,  and  how  unhistorical  are  the 
modern  attempts  to  fasten  upon  our  American  Methodist  fa- 
thers and  founders  the  principles  of  Quakerism  or  even  of 
Presbyterianism.  They  were  Episcopalians,  and  Wesley 
and  his  coadjutors  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  meant  to 
found,  and  did  found,  an  Episcopal  Church,  according  to 
the  principles  of  moderate  episcopacy  once  generally  accept- 
ed in  the  Church  of  England,  and  always  represented  by  a 
respectable  minority  of  eminent  divines  in  that  Church. 

The  Conference  committed  itself  strongly  and  unqualified- 
ly against  "  modern  abolitionism:"*  there  was  no  slavery 
legislation  by  the  General  Conferences  of  1828,  1832,  or 
1836;  or,  indeed,  until  long  after  the  division  of  the  Church. 

Beverly  Waugh,  Thomas  A.  Morris,  and  Wilbur  Fisk 
were  elected  Bishops;  the  last  mentioned,  on  his  return  from 
Europe,  declined  to  be  ordained.  Bishops  Roberts,  Soule, 
and  Hedding  were  all  granted  permission  to  retire  from 
episcopal  service  so  far  as  their  health  might  demand. 

Friday  afternoon,  May  27,  the  report  on  temperance  be- 
ing under  discussion,  on  motion  of  William  Winans  it  was 
agreed,  "  that  the  resolution  under  consideration  be  referred 
to  the  bishops,  with  the  request  that  they  give  their  opinion, 
whether  it  interfere  with  the  fourth  restrictive  regulation  in 
our  Discipline;"  afterwards  "  the  whole  report  was  referred 
to  the  bishops  for  their  decision,  whether  its  contents  inter- 
fere with  the  restrictive  resolution  referred  to."  The  de- 
cision of  the  Bishops  does  not  appear  from  the  Journal. 

Friday  evening,  May  27,  1836,  the  General  Conference 
adjourned. 

And  here,  having  pursued  the  constitutional  history  of  our 
Church  from  the  assembling  of  the  first  English  Conference 
in  1744,  under  the  presidency  of  John  Wesley,  and  of  the 
first  American  Conference  in  1773,  under  the  presidency  of 
Thomas  Rankin,  to  the  close  of  a  well  defined  period  of  di- 


Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  443,  446-447. 


414  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 

vided  constitutional  sentiment  and  interpretation  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  were  rapidly  crystalli- 
zing in  the  two  wings  of  the  Church,  we  may  fittingly  bring 
our  narrative  to  a  close.  The  calm  between  the  storm  which 
abated  in  1828  and  that  which  burst  on  the  Church  in  1844, 
deceptive  though  it  was,  affords  a  good  opportunity  for 
taking  observations  and  determining  our  bearings.  It  is  the 
best  point  in  our  history  from  which  to  take  the  long  look 
back  to  our  beginnings,  and  the  long  look  ahead  to  our  pres- 
ent. All  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  as  illustrated  in 
cases  of  their  concrete  application,  have  passed  under  review 
in  our  pages;  and  much  of  the  late  constitutional  history  of 
the  Church,  down  to  the  centenary  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence in  1892,  has  been  anticipated,  at  least  in  its  broad  out- 
lines. Withholding  detailed  discussion  of  the  later  affairs  of 
the  Church,  upon  which  equally  sincere  brethren  are  not  yet 
able  to  see  eye  to  eye,  the  author  diffidently  submits  these 
results  of  labors,  which,  to  him,  at  least,  have  been  deeply 
engaging,  to  the  candid  consideration  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copalians of  the  United  States,  and  humbly  invokes  the 
favor  of  Him  without  whose  blessing  nothing  is  wise  or 
good  or  strong. 

[Here  ended  the  First  Edition.'] 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  EIGHTH  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE,  184O. 

THE  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference  assembled 
in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  Friday,  May  i,  1840,  and  ad- 
journed Wednesday  evening,  June  3,  appointing  the  Ninth 
Conference  to  meet  in  the  city  of  New  York,  May  i,  1844. 
All  the  six  Bishops — Roberts,  Soule,  Hedding,  Andrew, 
Waugh,  and  Morris — presided  during  the  session,  though 
the  name  of  Bishop  Andrew  is  not  attached  to  the  Journal. 
There  were  one  hundred  and  forty-two  delegates  elect,  of 
whom  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  took  their  seats  at  the 
first  roll-call.  They  represented  twenty-eight  Annual  Con- 
ferences, the  New  York  having  the  largest  delegation,  com- 
posed of  ten  members,  followed  by  Baltimore  and  Ohio  with 
eight  each.  Nine  of  the  future  Bishops  of  the  Church — 
Hamline,  Bascom,  Ames,  Paine,  Pierce,  Capers,  Wightman, 
Early,  and  Levi  Scott — were  among  the  members.  It  was  an 
harmonious  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  somewhat  restless 
agitation  of  the  Rev.  Orange  Scott,  of  the  New  England 
delegation,  a  conservative  session,  giving  little  presage  of 
the  disruption  of  four  years  later.  The  meeting  was  also 
marked  by  the  presence  of  the  eminent  Dr.  Robert  Newton, 
as  the  fraternal  delegate  of  British  Methodism.  By  resolu- 
tion of  the  Conference,  Tuesday,  June  2,  Bishop  Soule  was 
appointed  fraternal  delegate  to  the  British  Conference  to 
visit  England  in  1842;*  and  on  his  nomination,  accorded  to 
him  by  action  of  the  Conference,  Thomas  B.  Sargent,  by  a 
rising  vote,  was  unanimously  elected  his  traveling  compan- 
ion.! 

The  Judiciary  Committee — "  to  whom  may  be  referred  all 


*  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  108.    i;Ib{d.,  II.  128. 

(415) 


416  The  Delegated  General  Confer etices. 


appeals  or  complaints  of  any  character  against  the  acts  and 
doings  of  an  Annual  Conference" — appointed  for  the  first 
time  on  motion  of  Nathan  Bangs  four  years  before,  disap- 
pears. Its  functions,  though  in  part  belonging  to  the  present 
Committee  on  Appeals,  are  absorbed  by  the  standing  Com- 
mittee on  Itinerancy,  composed  of  twenty-eight  members, 
one  from  each  Annual  Conference,  "  to  whom  shall  be  re- 
ferred'all  the  acts  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences," 
appointed  on  motion  of  John  Early,  of  the  Virginia  Confer- 
ence; who,  on  the  afternoon  of  the  first  day,  brought  in  a 
series  of  resolutions  providing  for  nine  standing  committees 
and  defining  their  duties.  All  of  them  were  ordered  by  the 
Conference  as  follows;  Episcopacy,  Boundaries,  Itinerancy, 
Book  Concern,  Missions,  Education,  Revisal,  Expenses,  and 
Temperance.*  Of  these,  the  first  three  were  to  consist  of  a 
member  from  each  Conference.  On  Saturday,  the  second 
day  of  the  Conference,  Orange  Scott,  of  the  New  England 
Conference,  presented  the  first  of  many  petitions  (in  this 
case  "  from  persons  residing  in  the  city  of  New  York  "  )  on 
the  subject  of  slavery.  Whereupon  John  Early  moved  the 
appointment  of  a  standing  Committee  on  Slavery,  **  to  whom 
all  papers,  petitions,  and  memorials  upon  that  subject  shall 
be  referred."  It  was  ordered  that  the  committee  consist  of 
twenty-eight  members,  one  from  each  Conference,  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  respective  delegations. t  These  four  com- 
mittees— Episcopacy,  Itinerancy,  Boundaries,  and  Slavery — 
were  the  only  ones  on  which  each  Annual  Conference  was 
represented. 

Until  this  General  Conference  it  seems  to  have  been  the 
unquestioned  prerogative,  or,  at  least,  the  uniform  custom, 
,of  the  Bishop  presiding  in  the  General  Conference,  in  the 
event  of  a  tie  vote  on  any  pending  measure  or  question,  to 
"cast  the  decisive  vote.  An  example  of  the  practice  occurs 
during  this  session.  Bishop  Andrew  was  in  the  chair,  and 
a  motion  to  lay  a  certain  substitute  on  the  table  was  before 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  11,  12.    ■\ Ibid.,  II.  14. 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  1S40.  417 


the  house.  "  The  question  being  taken,"  says  the  Journal, 
"  the  vote  stood  sixty-two  to  sixty-two.  The  President  vot- 
ing in  the  affirmative,  the  substitute  was  laid  on  the  table."* 
But,  Bishop  Hedding  being  in  the  chair  on  Thursday  after- 
noon, May  28,  and  the  yeas  and  nays  having  been  ordered 
on  an  exciting  and  important  measure,  the  result  showed 
sixty-nine  yeas  and  sixty-nine  nays.  "  Whereupon  Bishop 
Hedding  stated  that,  in  his  judgment,  a  Bishop  presiding  in 
the  General  Conference  has  not  the  prerogative,  in  case  of 
a  tie  vote  on  a  question,  to  decide  it  by  giving  the  casting 
vote ;  and  that,  as  there  was  not  a  majority  in  favor  of  the 
resolution,  it  was  lost,  of  course. "t  This  precedent  has 
since  been  uniformly  followed. 

As  an  episcopal  address,  extended  and  formal,  and  signed 
by  all  the  Bishops,  is  for  the  first  time  recorded  as  a  part  of 
the  Journal  of  1840,  it  may  be  well  to  rehearse  here  with 
some  fullness  the  history  of  these  communications.  Bishops 
Coke,  Asbury,  and  Whatcoat  did  not  employ  this  method  of 
making  suggestions  to  the  General  Conference.  Bishop 
McKendree,  on  his  own  sole  responsibility,  first  presented 
an  address  in  i8i2;t  gently  and  tactfully  overcoming  the 
scruples  and  objections  of  Asbury.  In  1816  Bishop  McKen- 
dree, being  alone  in  the  episcopal  office,  again  presented  a 
message,  which  was  referred  to  a  committee  for  distribution. § 
In  1820  Bishop  McKendree  alone  presented  a  written  com- 
munication to  the  General  Conference.  It  was  orally  sup- 
plemented by  Bishops  George  and  Roberts,  and  the  whole 
referred  to  appropriate  committees.  ||  In  1824,  on  Tuesday, 
May  4,  "an  address  from  the  Bishop  was  presented  and 
read,"  but  was  laid  on  the  table  until  other  matters  were  dis- 
posed of.  On  Wednesday,  May  5,  "the  address  of  the 
Bishop  w^as  taken  up  and  read,"  and,  on  motion  of  S.  G. 
Roszel  and  Joshua  Soule,it  was  resolved  "  that  so  much  of 
the  address  of  the  episcopacy  as  refers  to  the  Canada  busi- 
ness be  referred  to  a  select  committee."    Though  thus  de- 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  62.  "f  Ibid.,  II.  88.  %  Ibid.,  I.  100.  %Ibid.,  I.  126. 
II  Ibid.,  I.  199. 

27 


4i8 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


scribed  in  the  resolution  as  an  "address  of  the  episcopacy," 
it  does  not  appear  from  the  record  that  it  was  more  than  an 
address  of  "  the  Bishop  " — of  course  Bishop  McKendree.* 
Hitherto  no  episcopal  address  had  borne  any  other  signature 
than  Bishop  McKendree's.  In  1828,  on  Friday,  May  2,  "a 
communication  from  the  superintendents  to  the  Conference 
was  likewise  read,  giving  a  general  view  of  the  state  of  the 
Church  and  the  prospects  before  us,  and  recommending 
some  important  measures  for  consideration."  It  was  later 
ordered  that  this  address  be  printed,  but  no  record  of  it  ap- 
pears in  the  Journal.  The  several  sections  of  the  address 
were,  on  motion,  distributed  to  appropriate  committees. t 
In  1832,  the  course  pursued  in  1828  was  closely  followed. 
In  the  Journal  of  1836  I  have  been  unable  to  find  any  refer- 
ence to  a  written  communication  from  the  Bishops.  On  the 
first  day  of  the  Conference  the  following  Friday  was  ap- 
pointed as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer,  and  it  was  resolved 
"that  one  of  the  Bishops  be  respectfully  requested,  as  they 
shall  agree  among  themselves,  to  address  the  Conference  on 
the  state  of  the  work  in  the  Church,  and  the  missions  under 
its  care  during  the  four  years  past,  together  with  such  other 
matters  as  they  may  deem  suited  to  the  occasion. "t  Friday, 
May  6,  Bishop  Soule  being  in  the  chair,  "Bishops  Hedding 
and  Roberts  addressed  the  Conference  on  several  points  re- 
specting the  state  of  the  work  generally,  especially  as  to  the 
prospects  of  progress  of  vital  religion  in  the  ministry  and 
membership,  the  uniformity  of  the  administration  of  the  dis- 
cipline, and  our  missionary  operations,  etc."§  This  seems 
to  have  been  the  method,  probably  suggested  by  the  Bishops 
themselves,  adopted  to  supply  the  lack  of  a  formal  episcopal 
address. 

The  quadrennium  from  1836  to  1840  had  been  too  pro- 
ductive of  important  issues  to  permit  in  1840  a  repetition  of 
the  omission  of  1836.  There  was  now  presented  an  elabo- 
rate document,  reciting  the  movements  of  the  preceding 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  I.  344,  246.  ^Ibid.,  I.  305,  308,  309.  %Ibid.,  I.  427. 
^Ibid.,  I.  437. 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  1S4.0.  419 


quadrennium,  and  containing  numerous  and  weighty  recom- 
mendations. The  address  bears  ample  indications  that  it 
proceeded  from  the  pen  of  Bishop  Soule,  who  is  also  re- 
puted, in  not  untrustworthy  tradition,  to  have  been  the  author 
of  the  addresses  of  1828,  1832,  and  1844.  The  opening 
sentence  declares  that  "  the  meeting  of  this  solemn  and  con- 
stitutional body,  just  at  the  opening  of  the  second  century  of 
Wesleyan  Methodism"  affords  "a  peculiarly  appropriate 
occasion  for  reviewing  the  rise  and  progress  of  that  great 
and  blessed  revival  of  pure  Christianity."  Later  the  senti- 
ment is  advanced  that  "the  connection  of  Wesleyan  Meth- 
odists in  all  parts  of  the  world  should  remain  one  household, 
keeping  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  One 
in  doctrine,  and  in  all  the  essential  points  of  discipline,  they 
should  remain  undivided  in  affection;  and  no  minor  consid- 
erations, growing  out  of  difference  of  country,  civil  govern- 
ment, or  other  circumstances,  should  ever  separate  us  or 
interrupt  our  Christian  fellowship."  Mr.  Wesley's  ideal  of 
the  continued  union  of  British  and  American  Methodists  had 
not  yet  been  lost  sight  of,  and  might  be  profitably  revived  in 
our  own  day.  After  noting  that  it  was  the  "  solemn  convic- 
tion "  of  the  General  Conference  of  1836,  after  a  careful 
examination  of  the  whole  ground,  that  the  interests  of  re- 
ligion would  not  be  advanced  by  any  additional  enactments 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  Bishops  thus  present  that  ex- 
citing theme : 

In  your  Pastoral  Address  to  the  ministers  and  people  at  your  last  session, 
with  great  unanimity,  and,  as  we  believe,  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  ministers 
of  the  peaceful  gospel  of  Christ,  you  solemnly  advised  the  whole  body  to 
abstain  from  all  abolition  movements,  and  from  agitating  the  exciting  sub- 
ject in  the  Church.  This  advice  was  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  individ- 
ual as  well  as  associated  views  of  your  superintendents.  .  .  But  we 
regret  that  we  are  compelled  to  say,  that  in  some  of  the  Northern  and  East- 
ern Conferences,  in  contravention  of  your  Christian  and  pastoral  counsel, 
and  of  your  best  efforts  to  carry  it  into  effect,  the  subject  has  been  agitated 
in  such  forms,  and  in  such  a  spirit,  as  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church. 
This  unhappy  agitation  has  not  been  confined  to  the  Annual  Conferences, 
but  has  been  introduced  into  Quarterly  Conferences,  and  made  the  absorb- 
ing business  of  self-created  bodies  in  the  bosom  of  our  beloved  Zion.  .   .  . 


420  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


We  cannot,  however,  but  regard  it  as  of  unhappy  tendency  that  either  in- 
dividual members,  or  oflScial  bodies  of  the  Church,  should  employ  terms, 
and  pass  resolutions  of  censure  and  condemnation  on  their  brethren,  and  on 
public  officers  and  official  bodies,  over  whose  actions  they  have  no  legiti- 
mate jurisdiction.  .  .  .  It  is  justly  due  to  a  number  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  in  which  a  majority,  or  a  very  respectable  minority,  of  the 
members  are  professedly  abolitionists,  to  say  that  they  occupy  a  very  differ- 
ent ground,  and  pursue  a  very  different  course  from  those  of  their  brethren 
who  have  adopted  ultra  principles  and  measures  in  this  unfortunate,  and, 
we  think,  unprofitable  controversy.  The  result  of  action  had  in  such  Con- 
ferences on  the  resolution  of  the  New  England  Conference,  recommending 
a  very  important  change  in  our  general  rule  on  slavery,  is  satisfactory 
proof  of  this  fact,  and  affords  us  strong  and  increasing  confidence  that  the 
unity  and  peace  of  the  Church  are  not  to  be  materially  affected  by  this  ex- 
citing subject.  Many  of  the  preachers  who  were  favorably  disposed  to  the 
cause  of  abolition,  when  they  saw  the  extent  to  which  it  was  designed  to 
carry  these  measures,  and  the  inevitable  consequences  of  their  prosecution, 
came  to  a  pause,  reflected,  and  declined  their  cooperation.  They  clearly 
perceived  that  the  success  of  the  measures  would  result  in  the  division  of 
the  Church;  and  for  such  an  event  they  were  not  prepared.  .  .  .  A  few 
preachers  and  members,  disappointed  in  their  expectations,  and  despairing 
of  the  success  of  their  cause  in  the  Methodist  Church,  have  withdrawn 
from  our  fellowship,  and  connected  themselves  with  associations  more  con- 
genial with  their  views  and  feelings;  and  others,  in  similar  circumstances, 
may  probably  follow  their  example.  But  we  rejoice  in  believing  that  these 
secessions  will  be  very  limited,  and  that  the  great  body  of  Methodists  in 
these  states  will  continue,  as  they  have  been,  one  and  inseparable. 

The  superintendents  then  summarize  and  recite  some  very 
pertinent  history,  and  on  it  base  some  recommendations: 

And  first:  our  general  rule  on  slavery,  which  forms  a  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  has  stood  from  the  beginning  unchanged,*  as  testa- 
mentary of  our  sentiments  on  the  principle  of  slavery  and  the  slave  trade. 
And  in  this  we  differ  in  no  respect  from  our  venerable  founder,  or  from 
those  of  the  wisest  and  most  distinguished  statesmen  and  civilians  of  our 
own  and  other  enlightened  and  Christian  countries.  Secondly:  in  all  the 
enactments  of  the  Church  relating  to  slavery,  a  due  and  respectful  regard 
has  been  had  to  the  laws  of  the  states,  never  requiring  emancipation  in  con- 
travention of  the  civil  authority,  or  where  the  laws  of  the  states  would  not 
allow  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  his  freedom.  Thirdly:  the  simple  hold- 
ing or  owning  of  slaves,  without  regard  to  circumstances,  has,  at  no  period 
of  the  existence  of  the  Church,  subjected  the  master  to  excommunication. 
Fourthly:  rules  have  been  made  from  time  to  time  regulating  the  sale  and 
purchase  and  holding  of  slaves,  with  reference  to  the  different  laws  of  the 


"In  this  the  Bishops  were  mistaken:  the  general  rule  on  slavery  first  appeared  in  the  Dis- 
cipline of  1789. 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  1840.  421 


states  -where  slavery  is  tolerated;  which,  upon  the  experience  of  the  great 
difficulties  of  administering  them,  and  the  unhappy  consequences  both  to 
masters  and  servants,  have  been  as  often  changed  or  repealed.  .  .  .  We 
cannot  withhold  from  you,  at  this  eventful  period,  the  solemn  conviction  of 
our  minds,  that  no  new  ecclesiastical  legislation  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
at  this  time,  will  have  a  tendency  to  accomplish  these  most  desirable  ob- 
jects. And  we  are  fully  persuaded  that,  as  a  body  of  Christian  ministers, 
we  shall  accomplish  the  greatest  good  by  directing  our  individual  and  united 
efforts,  in  the  spirit  of  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity,  to  bring  both  mas- 
ter and  servant  under  the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  principles  of  that 
gospel  which  teaches  the  duties  of  every  relation,  and  enforces  the  faithful 
discharge  of  them  by  the  strongest  conceivable  motives.  .  .  .  Permit  us 
to  add,  that,  although  we  enter  not  into  the  political  contentions  of  the  day, 
neither  interfere  with  civil  legislation,  nor  with  the  administration  of  the 
la'ws,  we  cannot  but  feel  a  deep  interest  in  whatever  affects  the  peace,  pros- 
perity, and  happiness  of  our  beloved  country.  The  union  of  these  states, 
the  perpetuity  of  the  bonds  of  our  national  confederation,  the  reciprocal 
confidence  of  the  different  members  of  the  great  civil  compact, — in  a  word, 
the  well-being  of  the  community  of  which  we  are  members,  should  never 
cease  to  lie  near  our  hearts,  and  for  which  we  should  offer  up  our  sincere 
and  most  ardent  pravers  to  the  Almighty  Ruler  of  the  universe.* 

It  is  with  some  reluctance  that  I  incorporate  so  consider- 
able a  section  on  this  painful,  but  long  since  adjudicated, 
subject  into  the  pages  of  this  History.  But  it  seems  hardly 
possible  to  avoid  it.  I  am  well  aware  of  what  ma}'^  be  said 
of  the  courage  and  devotion  of  the  New  England  abohtion- 
ists;  of  the  "irrepressible"  and  disruptive  conflict  which  no 
soft-speaking  and  easy-going  conservatism  could  prevent 
from  rushing  on  to  its  appointed  issue  in  the  division  of 
Church  and  State;  and  of  the  natural  reluctance,  or  even 
timidity,  that  has  so  often  characterized  responsible  leaders 
in  Church  and  State  in  the  presence  of  radical  or  revolution- 
ary movements.  But  it  is  yet  to  be  proved  that  the  issue 
was,  at  this  stage,  uncontrollable,  and  the  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  disruption  inevitable.  That  the  advancing  civilization, 
and  the  enlarging  moral  and  religious  sense,  of  mankind  in- 
volved the  ultimate  extinction  of  human  slavery  in  these 
United  States,  there  is  no  disposition  here  to  deny.  There 
is  just  as  little  disposition  to  subscribe  to  the  fancy  which  has 
long  been  the  fashion,  and  which  by  many  is  viewed  as  a 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  134-137. 


422 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


self-evident  canon  of  interpretation,  that  the  history  was 
foreordained  to  run  in  the  channels  which  it  actually  followed. 
It  may  be  very  reasonably  argued,  for  example,  that  the 
Civil  War  did  not  become  a  certainty  till  the  measures  of  Mr. 
Douglas,  enacted  into  law,  made  " bleeding  Kansas"  the 
scene  of  unutterable  atrocities,  and  divided  the  party  of  which 
that  gentleman  was  an  acknowledged  champion.  Certain  it 
is  that  only  after  some  years  of  civil  strife  did  Mr.  Lincoln, 
(who  had  declared  his  supreme  purpose  to  save  the  Union, 
with  or  without  slavery,)  resolve  upon  emancipation  as  a 
practical  military  measure,  upon  which  abolition  agitation, 
then  or  before,  had  no  perceptible  influence.  Similarly, 
Arminian  Methodists,  who  believe  in  the  freedom  and  sov- 
ereignty of  the  human  will,  should  be  very  slow  to  assume, 
after  the  event,  that  the  measures  recommended  by  a  united 
Board  of  Bishops  in  1840  had  no  adequate  or  wise  adaptation  to 
existing  circumstances,  and  no  real  tendency  to  secure  the  uni- 
ty of  the  Church,  whose  division  possibly  became  inevitable 
only  in  1844.  It  is  worth  while,  at  least,  to  remember  that  the 
Pastoral  Address  of  the  General  Conference  of  1836  advised 
the  whole  Methodist  body  "to  abstain  from  all  abolition 
movements,"  and  that  *'  this  advice  was  in  perfect  agreement 
with  the  individual  as  well  as  associated  views"  of  the  Bish- 
ops— of  Hedding  no  less  than  of  Soule,  of  Roberts  no  less 
than  of  Andrew.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  a  united 
College  of  Bishops  showed  in  1840  the  keenest  anxiety  for 
the  continued  unity  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Nation.  That 
they  used  their  best  endeavors  to  secure  these  desirable  ends 
cannot  well  be  doubted.  That  they  might  not  have  suc- 
ceeded in  their  own  immediate  aims,  had  the  whole 
Church  stood  steadfastly  on  the  broad  platform  which  they 
laid  down,  is  more  than  human  wisdom  dare  assert. 

In  any  event,  it  remains  true  that  the  union  of  the  whole  body 
of  Bishops  on  the  platform  outlined  in  the  preceding  extracts 
indicates  a  harmony  of  sentiment  among  themselves,  in  the 
membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  a  whole, 
and  in  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  whose  actions  as 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  1840.  423 


we  shall  see,  were  in  accord  with  the  opinions  and  recom- 
mendations of  the  Bishops,  that  seemed  to  presage  the  ulti- 
mate and  general  triumph  of  conservatism.  The  laws  put 
into  the  Discipline  at  this  session  were  aimed  directly  at  the 
regulation  or  repression  of  radicalism,  and,  but  for  the  un- 
foreseen complications  of  four  years  later,  it  seems  as  if  they 
had  a  more  than  equal  chance  to  accomplish  their  purpose. 
The  existing  differences  between  the  Bishops  and  the  An- 
nual Conferences  which  were  controlled  by  the  radical  abo- 
litionists were  brought  before  the  General  Conference  in  the 
following  language  of  the  Episcopal  Address: 

Another  subject  of  vital  importance,  as  we  apprehend,  to  the  unity  and 
peace  of  the  Church,  and  not  unconnected  with  the  foregoing,  is  the  con- 
stitutional powers  of  the  General  Superintendents,  in  their  relations  to  the 
Annual  Conferences,  and  in  their  general  executive  administration  of  the 
government;  and  the  rights  of  Annual  and  Quarterly  Conferences,  in  their 
official  capacities.  In  the  prosecution  of  our  superintending  agency,  we 
have  been  compelled  to  differ  in  opinion  from  many  of  our  brethren  com- 
posing these  official  bodies,  and  this  difference  of  opinion,  connected  with  a 
high  conviction  of  our  high  responsibility,  has,  in  a  few  cases,  resulted  in 
action  which  has  been  judged  by  those  specially  concerned  to  be  high- 
handed, unconstitutional,  tyrannical,  and  oppressive.  In  all  such  cases,  we 
have  given  the  most  unequivocal  assurances  that  we  should,  with  unfeigned 
satisfaction  and  the  kindest  feelings,  submit  the  whole  matter  in  contro- 
versy, with  all  our  official  acts  in  the  premises,  to  the  enlightened  delibera- 
tion and  final  judgment  of  this  constitutional  tribunal.  And  we  cannot  but 
indulge  the  hope  that  those  who  have  differed  from  us  will  cordially  abide 
the  decision  of  such  a  judicatory,  should  it  not  accord  with  their  views. 
.  .  In  presenting  the  subject  for  your  consideration,  it  is  due  to  a  very 
large  majority  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  to  the  members  compos- 
ing them,  individually,  to  say  that  the  utmost  harmony  and  confidence  and 
affection  exists  between  them  and  the  General  Superintendents.  The  geo- 
graphical bounds  of  the  controversy  are  very  limited. 

The  whole  subject  may  be  presented  to  you  in  the  following  simple 
questions:  When  any  business  comes  up  for  action  in  our  Annual  or  Quar- 
terly Conferences,  involving  a  difficulty  on  a  question  of  law,  so  as  to  pro- 
duce the  inquiry,  What  is  the  law  in  the  case?  does  the  constitutional 
power  to  decide  the  question  belong  to  the  President  or  the  Conference? 
Have  the  Annual  Conferences  a  constitutional  right  to  do  any  other  business 
than  what  is  specifically  prescribed,  or,  by  fair  construction,  provided 
for  in  the  form  of  Discipline?  Has  the  President  of  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence, by  virtue  of  his  office,  a  right  to  decline  putting  a  motion  or  resolu- 
tion to  vote,  on  business  other  than  that  thus  prescribed  or  provided  for? 
These  questions  are  proposed  with  exclusive  reference  to  the  principle  of 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


coiistitutwnal  right.  The  principles  of  courtesy  or  expediency  are  very  dif- 
ferent things. 

As  required  by  the  principles  of  fairness,  the  Bishops  then 
undertake  to  state  the  positions,  and  the  reasons  for  them, 
of  those  who  differ  with  them: 

They  maintain  that  all  questions  of  law  arising  out  of  the  business  of  our 
Annual  or  Quarterly  Conferences  are  to  be,  of  right,  settled  by  the  decision 
of  those  bodies,  either  primarily  by  resolution,  or  finally  by  an  appeal  from 
the  President:  "that  it  is  the  prerogative  of  an  Annual  Conference  to  decide 
■what  business  they  will  do,  and  -v!ic7t  they  will  do  it":  that  they  have  a  con- 
stitutional right  "to  discuss  in  their  official  capacity  all  moral  subjects":  to 
investigate  the  official  acts  of  other  Annual  Conferences,  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  of  the  General  Superintendents,  so  far  as  to  pass  resolu- 
tions of  disapprobation  or  approval  on  those  acts.  They  maintain  that  the 
President  of  an  Annual  Conference  is  to  be  regarded  in  the  same  relation 
to  the  Conference  that  a  chairman  or  speaker  sustains  to  a  civil  legislative 
assembly:  that  it  is  his  duty  to  preserve  order  in  the  Conference,  to  deter- 
mine questions  of  order  subject  to  appeal,  and  put  to  vote  all  motions  and 
resolutions,  when  called  for,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  body:  that  these 
are  the  settled  landmarks  of  his  official  prerogatives,  as  President  of  the 
Conference,  beyond  which  he  has  no  right  to  go:  that,  although  it  belongs 
to  his  office  as  General  Superintendent  to  appoint  the  time  for  holding  the 
several  Annual  Conferences,  he  has  no  discretionary  authority  to  adjourn 
them,  whatever  length  of  time  they  may  have  continued  their  session,  or 
whatever  business  they  may  think  proper  to  transact. 

Having  thus  pointedly  and  analytically  stated  the  issue,  the 
Bishops  add  this  paragraph  of  general  historical  and  legal 
exposition : 

The  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  peculiarly  con- 
structed. It  is  widely  different  from  our  civil  organization.  The  General 
Conference  is  the  only  legislative  body  recognized  in  our  ecclesiastical  sys- 
tem, and  from  it  originates  the  authority  of  the  entire  executive  adminis- 
tration. The  exclusive  power  to  create  Annual  Conferences,  and  to  in- 
crease or  diminish  their  number,  rests  with  this  body.  No  Annual  Confer- 
ence has  authority  or  right  to  make  any  rule  of  discipline  for  the  Church, 
either  within  its  own  bounds  or  elsewhere.  No  one  has  the  power  to  elect 
its  own  President,  except  in  a  special  case,  pointed  out  and  provided  for  by 
the  General  Conference.  Whatever  may  be  the  number  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  they  are  all  organized  on  the  same  plan,  are  all  governed  by 
the  same  laws,  and  all  have  identically  the  same  riirhis,  and  foivcrs,  and 
privileges.  These  powers,  and  rights,  and  privileges  are  not  derived  from 
themselves,  but  from  the  body  which  originated  them.  And  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  containing  the  rules  of  the  General  Conference,  is  the  only 
charter  of  their  rights,  and  directory  of  their  duties,  as  official  bodies.  The 
General  Superintendents  are  elected  by  the  General  Conference,  and  re- 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  184.0.  425 


sponsible  to  it  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  their  office.  They  are  con- 
stituted, by  virtue  of  their  office,  Presidents  of  the  Annual  Conferences, 
witli  authority  to  appoint  the  time  of  holding  them;  with  a  prudential  pro- 
vision that  they  shall  allow  each  Conference  to  sit  at  least  one  week,  that 
the  important  business  prescribed  in  the  form  of  Discipline  may  not  be 
hurried  through  in  such  a  manner  as  to  affect  injuriously  the  interests  of 
the  Church.  The  primary  objects  of  their  official  department  in  the 
Church  were,  as  we  believe,  to  preserve  in  tlie  most  effectual  manner  an 
itinerant  ministry;  to  maintain  a  uniformity  in  the  administration  of  the 
government  and  discipline  in  every  department,  and  that  the  unity  of  the 
whole  body  might  be  preserved.  But  how,  we  would  ask,  can  these  im- 
portant ends  be  accomplished,  if  each  Annual  Conference  possesses  the 
»-jV///5  and /otferi  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  summary  ?  .  .  .  Is  it  not  great- 
ly to  be  feared  that  with  such  a  system  of  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence,  what 
might  be  law  in  Georgia  would  be  no  law  in  New  England?  That  what 
might  be  orthodoxy  in  one  Conference,  might  be  heresy  in  another? 
Where,  then,  would  be  the  identity  of  the  law,  the  uniformity  of  its  admin- 
istration, or  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church?  * 

For  the  details  of  the  administration  of  Bishops  and  pre- 
siding elders  during  the  quadrennium  of  1836-40,  on  which 
this  outspoken  message  of  the  Bishops  was  based,  the  reader 
must  be  referred  to  the  general  histories  and  several  mono- 
graphs written  from  the  abolition  standpoint.  At  least  four 
of  the  Bishops  were  involved.!  "  The  older  Bishops — Red- 
ding and  Soule — encountered  rough  seas,  but  weathered  the 
storm  with  only  slight  damage ;  but  when  it  was  the  turn  of 
Bishops  Waugh  and  Morris  to  preside  in  New  England,  they 
properly  dreaded  it."  Morris  summoned  Soule  to  his  aid 
in  New  Hampshire.  When  Waugh  met  the  Conference  at 
Nantucket  in  1837,  a  caucus  of  sixty  preachers  had  already 
been  held:  through  a  committee  they  inquired  whether  he 
would  rule  against  the  introduction  of  abolition  petitions. 
In  the  event  of  refusal,  their  programme  was  to  lay  all  other 
business  on  the  table  till  this  "right"  was  granted.  One 
who  had  large  experience  in  Annual  Conference  presidency 
speaks  of  Waugh  as  a  "  badly  badgered  Bishop  ";  but  he 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  134-140.  -j-As  far  as  is  disclosed  by  an 
attentive  examination  of  the  pages  of  his  biographer,  Dr.  G.  G.  Smith, 
Bishop  Andrew  never  presided  in  the  New  England  Conferences  and 
was  officially  unknown  there — another  example  of  the  evils  of  sectional 
visitation. 


426 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


replied  in  a  long  letter  asserting  the  "  rights  "  of  the  chair 
and  denying  the  claims  of  the  agitators.  Bishop  Hedding 
denied  that  it  was  the  prerogative  of  Annual  Conferences  to 
decide  "what  business  they  will  do,  and  when  they  will  do 
it,"  and  characterized  the  attempt  to  act  on  this  doctrine  as 
usurpation  over  the  President  of  the  Conference.  He  added 
the  complaint,  *'And  because  I  was  unwilling  to  submit  to 
this  usurpation  I  have  been  severely  censured.  I  have  been 
unjustly,  repeatedly,  and  cruelly  held  up  to  public  view,  by 
certain  inconsiderate  writers,  as  one  who  infringed  on  the 
♦rights'  of  my  brethren."  Dr.  Wilbur  Fisk  declared  through 
the  Church  press  **  that  the  doctrines  and  measures  of  mod- 
ern abolitionism  are  revolutionary  in  their  character  and 
tendency,  and  must,  if  persisted  in,  end  in  schism  and  in 
the  dismemberment  of  the  Church  of  Christ."  Bishops 
Hedding  and  Soule  repeatedly  preferred  charges  against  the 
leaders  for  "slander,"  "falsehood,"  "misrepresentation," 
etc.;  but  the  verdict  was  uniformly  triumphant  acquittal. 
And  so  the  General  Superintendents  had  come  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  for  redress  or  settlement. 

It  was  speedily  and  effectively  given  by  overwhelming 
majorities.  By  a  vote  of  ninety-eight  to  five,  the  duties  of 
a  Bishop  were  further  defined  in  the  Discipline  by  "An- 
swer 7  ": 

To  decide  all  questions  of  law  in  an  Annual  Conference,  subject  to  an 
appeal  to  the  General  Conference;  but  in  all  cases  the  application  of  law 
shall  be  with  the  Conference.  * 

By  "  a  decided  majority  "  it  was  made  the  duty  of  pre- 
siding elders  to  "decide  all  questions  of  law  in  a  Quarterly 
Meeting  Conference,  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  President  of 
the  next  Annual  Conference;  but  in  all  cases  the  application 
of  law  shall  be  with  the  Conference . "  t  The  following  reso- 
lutions, also  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Itineranc)s  of 
which  Dr.  William  Winans,  of  Mississippi,  was  chairman, 
were,  after  amendment,  adopted: 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  120,  121.    \ Ibid.,  II.  120,  121, 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  184.0.  427 


3.  The  President  of  an  Annual  or  a  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference  has 
the  right  to  decline  putting  the  question  on  a  motion,  resolution,  or  report, 
when,  in  his  judgment,  such  motion,  resolution,  or  report,  does  not  relate  to 
the  proper  business  of  a  Conference:  provided,  that  in  all  such  cases  the 
President,  on  being  required  b/  the  Conference  to  do  so,  shall  have  inserted 
in  the  Journals  of  the  Conference  his  refusal  to  put  the  question  on  such 
motion,  resolution,  or  report,  with  his  reason  for  so  refusing;  and  provided, 
that  when  an  Annual  Conference  shall  differ  from  the  President  on  a  ques- 

,tion  of  law,  they  shall  have  a  right  to  record  their  dissent  on  the  Journals, 
provided  there  shall  be  no  discussion  of  the  subject. 

4.  That  the  President  of  an  Annual  or  a  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference 
has  the  right  to  adjourn  the  Conference  over  which  he  presides  when,  in 
his  judgment,  all  the  business  prescribed  by  the  Discipline  to  such  Confer- 
ence shall  have  been  transacted:  provided,  that  if  an  exception  be  taken  by 
the  Conference  to  his  so  adjourning  it,  the  exception  shall  be  entered  upon 
the  Journals  of  such  Conference.* 

The  frequency  with  which  the  subject  of  slavery,  in  one 
form  or  another,  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1840,  provoking  legal  action  or  definition, 
gives  to  a  present-day  narrative  that  attempts  to  reproduce 
even  an  outline  of  the  facts  an  appearance  of  monotony  and 
(since  the  action  was  all  in  one  direction)  of  one-sidedness. 
On  the  last  day  of  the  Conference  (Wednesday,  June  3)  Dr. 
Henry  B.  Bascom,  chairman  of  a  special  committee  on  the 
"Petition  from  Westmoreland,  Va.,"  concerning  the  with- 
holding of  orders  from  local  preachers  who  were  slavehold- 
ers by  the  Baltimore  Conference,  submitted  an  elaborate 
report,  filling  four  and  a  half  closely  printed  pages  of  the 
Journal,  and  characterized  by  all  his  breadth  and  depth  of 
legal  argumentation.  The  report  was  adopted,  and  its  pub- 
lication ordered  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal.  Its 
concluding  resolution,  because  of  its  bearing  on  later  devel- 
opments, must  be  reproduced  here: 

Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  in  General 
Conference  assembled.  That,  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  general 
rule  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves, 
or  mere  ownership  of  slave  property,  in  states  or  territories  where  the 
laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy 
freedom,  constitutes  no  legal  barrier  to  the  election  or  ordination  of  minis- 
ters to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  121. 


428  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  as  operating  any 
forfeiture  of  right  in  view  of  such  election  and  ordination.* 

Though  it  must  be  granted,  in  all  fairness,  that  perhaps 
few  members  of  the  General  Conference,  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  this  resolution,  anticipated  its  application  to  the 
episcopal  office,  the  terms  of  the  resolution  were  never- 
theless comprehensive  and  general.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  allowed  that  Dr.  Bascom  had  too  clear  an  insight 
into  the  principles  involved  to  suppose  that  this  resolution 
was  mandatory,  or  controlling,  of  the  action  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference.  The  Journals  of  the  body  for  a  series 
of  years  had  been  carefully  examined  by  the  committee, 
and  found  to  be  silent  on  the  subject  of  the  rejections  in  ques- 
tion, "  except  the  single  statement  that  A,  B,  and  C,  from 
time  to  time,  applied  for  admission  or  orders,  and  were  reject- 
ed." •*  The  charge  of  particular  motives,"  Dr.Bascom's  re- 
port went  on  to  recite,  *'  it  occurs  to  your  committee,  cannot 
be  sustained  in  the  instance  of  a  deliberative  body,  say  the 
Baltimore  Conference,  unless  it  appears  in  evidence  that  the 
motives  have  been  avowed  by  a  majority  of  the  Conference. 
.  .  .  The  evidence,  however,  in  relation  to  specific  rea- 
sons and  motives  is  defective,  and  does  not  appear  to  sustain 
the  charge  of  a  contravention  of  right  by  any  direct  accred- 
ited action  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  had  in  the  prem- 
ises." The  difficulty  was  also  acknowledged  arising  from 
the  fact  that,  while  the  rule  applicable  in  the  case  permitted 
an  Annual  Conference  to  elect,  it  could  not,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  require  it.  "Among  the  unquestioned  constitu- 
tional rights  of  our  Annual  Conferences,"  the  report  pro- 
ceeded to  say,  "  is  that  of  acting  freely,  without  any  com- 
pulsory direction,  in  the  exercise  of  individual  franchise. 
Election  here  is  plainly  an  assertion  of  personal  rights  on  the 
part  of  the  different  members  composing  the  body,  with  re- 
gard to  which  the  claim  to  question  or  challenge  motives  does 
not  belong  even  to  the  General  Conference,  unless  the  result 


*  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  129,  171. 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  18^0.  ,429 


has  turned  upon  avowed  considerations  unknown  to  the  law 
and  rule  in  the  case."  *  This  is  a  valuable  exposition  of  the 
fundamental  principles  applicable  to  the  situation  ;  neverthe- 
less Dr.  Bascom  framed,  the  committee  recommended,  and 
the  General  Conference  adopted,  the  resolution,  defining 
a  principle  which  the  General  Conference  could  directly  ap- 
ply, in  the  exercise  of  either  its  original  or  its  appellate 
jurisdiction,  even  when  it  was  powerless  to  enforce  it  on  an 
Annual  Conference. 

In  this  connection,  the  appeal  of  Daniel  Dorchester,  and 
the  reversal  of  the  action  of  the  New  England  Conference 
of  1839  his  case,  are  also  significant.  Dr.  Dorchester  was 
charged  with  '*  exceeding  the  powers  of  his  office  "  as  pre- 
siding elder:  the  specification  was  "  in  peremptorilj'-  arrest- 
ing the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference,  on  the  evening  of  the 
thirteenth  of  August  last,  in  the  midst  of  business  which  he 
had  allowed  them  to  commence;  and  for  suddenly  and  un- 
precedentedly  adjourning  the  Conference  contrary  to  the 
express  wish  of  a  great  majority  of  the  Conference,  thereby 
abridging  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  privileges  as  an  asso- 
ciate body."  After  the  usual  pleadings,  in  which  Messrs. 
Crandall,  Scott,  Merrill,  and  Stickney,  of  the  New  England 
delegation,  were  heard  in  reply  to  Dr.  Dorchester,  and  Mr. 
Holdich  concluded  in  his  defense,  the  following  resolution, 
introduced  by  Ignatius  A.  Few,  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  one 
hundred  and  tsventy  yeas  to  seventeen  nays,  the  delegates 
from  New  England  being  permitted  to  vote : 

Resolved,  That  the  decision  of  the  New  England  Conference  of  1839, 
censuring  Rev.  D.  Dorchester,  and  requiring  him  to  pursue  a  different 
course  in  future,  be,  and  the  same  is,  hereby  reversed.  | 

Dr.  Few  was  the  author  of  another  measure  which,  in  one 
way  and  another,  engaged  the  attention  of  the  General  Con- 
ference for  more  than  two  weeks,  from  Monday,  May  18, 
the  day  of  its  introduction,  to  Tuesday,  June  2,  when  the  last 
motion  in  connection  with  it  was  disposed  of.    On  Saturday, 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  169.   ^Ibid.,  II.  46-48. 


430  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


May  i6,  the  Conference  took  up  the  appeal  of  Silas  Com- 
fort. After  a  letter  from  the  appellant  and  the  Journals  of  the 
Missouri  Conference  had  been  read,  Bishop  Roberts,  in  the 
chair,  decided  that  the  appeal  ought  not  to  be  entertained ; 
but  the  Conference  overruled  him.  Comfort,  it  appears, 
had  been  found  guilty  of  maladministration  in  admitting  the 
testimony  of  persons  of  color  in  the  trial  of  a  white  member; 
but  his  character  had  been  passed  without  censure.  Dr. 
Winans  introduced  an  unfortunately  worded  resolution  af- 
firming the  decision  of  the  Conference  in  finding  Comfort 
guilty  of  maladministration,  but  reversing  the  passage  of  his 
character  without  censure.  The  resolution  was  divided; 
the  mover,  after  debate,  withdrew  the  second  part;  and  the 
vote  being  taken  on  the  remainder,  it  was  lost  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  decision  of  the  Missouri  Conference,  in  the  case  of 
S.  Comfort,  finding  him  guilty  of  maladministration,  be,  and  hereby  is,  af- 
firmed.* 

The  Secretary's  record  is,  "  So  the  Conference  refused  to 
affirm  the  decision  of  the  Missouri  Conference  in  the  case  of 
Silas  Comfort."  A  distinguished  ecclesiastical  lawyer  and 
parliamentarian  has  noted  on  the  margin  of  his  copy  of  the 
Journal,  now  before  me,  this  question  and  answer,  *'  What 
of  it?  It  stood  good  unless  reversed.^''  But  apparently  the 
parliamentarians  of  that  day  regarded  a  refusal  to  affirm  as 
equivalent  to  a  reversal ;  and  so  Silas  Comfort's  appeal  seemed 
to  be  disposed  of  to  his  satisfaction. 

On  the  following  Monday  Dr.  Few  introduced  his  resolu- 
tion, famous,  if  not  for  its  intrinsic  importance,  at  least  for  its 
extraordinary,  possibly  unparalleled,  parliamentary  history. 
It  read  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  and  unjustifiable  for  any  preacher  among 
us  to  permit  colored  persons  to  give  testimony  against  white  persons,  in  any 
state  -where  they  are  denied  that  privilege  in  trials  at  law. 

A  motion  to  strike  out  "  unjustifiable  "  and  insert  "  unad- 
visable  "  was  lost.  A  milder  substitute  of  S.  G.  Roszel's, 
in  which  the  preachers  in  slave  territory  were  simply  *'di- 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  57. 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  18^0.  431 


rected  not  to  admit  any  person  of  color  to  give  testimony 
against  any  white  person,"  was,  after  an  animated  discus- 
sion, laid  on  the  table.  Another  amendment,  to  insert  the 
words  "in  general"  after  the  word  "unjustifiable,"  was 
quickly  laid  on  the  table.  Whereupon  the  Conference, 
which  seemed  determined  to  have  the  resolution  in  the  exact 
words  in  which  Dr.  Few  submitted  it,  adopted  it  by  a  vote 
of  seventy-four  in  the  affirmative  to  forty-six  in  the  negative. 
The  Secretary  was  directed  to  furnish  the  Missouri  delegates 
with  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Silas  Comfort, 
and  also  of  the  resolution  respecting  the  testimony  of  colored 
persons.  Once  more,  the  whole  question  at  issue  seemed  to 
have  been  finally  disposed  of.* 

Tuesday  morning.  May  26,  D.  Ostrander  moved  a  recon- 
sideration of  the  decision  of  the  Conference  on  the  appeal 
of  Silas  Comfort,  pending  the  consideration  of  which  the 
Conference  adjourned.  In  the  afternoon,  the  motion  to  re- 
consider having  prevailed,  the  following  resolution,  offered 
by  Mr.  Ostrander,  was  adopted: 

Whereas  it  appears  from  the  Journal  of  the  Missouri  Conference  that  no 
censure  was  fixed  upon,  nor  reproof  given  to,  Silas  Comfort,  in  the  vote  of 
said  Conference,  but  that  he  was  simply  found  to  have  erred  in  judgment, 
and  his  character  was  passed  without  censure, 

Therefore,  after  mature  deliberation  by  the  General  Conference,  be  it 
resolved.  That  the  appeal  of  Silas  Comfort  be  not  entertained. 

Thus,  at  length,  the  Conference  came  around  to  the  posi- 
tion in  which  the  wisdom  of  Bishop  Roberts  would  have 
placed  it  immediately  on  the  presentation  of  the  appeal. 
But  while  Mr.  Ostrander's  resolution  was  pending,  a  substi- 
tute of  Tomlinson's,  which  added  to  its  provisions  "that the 
proceedings  of  this  body,  growing  out  of  the  entertainment  of 
said  appeal  (including  the  resolution  of  brother  Few  con- 
cerning the  testimony  of  colored  persons)  should  be  and 
hereby  are  ordered  to  be  erased  from  the  Journal,"  was  laid 
on  the  table.  George  Peck  now  moved  a  reconsideration  of 
the  resolution  of  I.  A.  Few,  pending  which  the  Conference 
adjourned.! 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  60,  61.    \Ibid.,  II.  81,  82. 


432 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


Thursday,  May  28,  on  motion  of  Norval  Wilson,  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference,  Peck's  motion  to  reconsider  was 
taken  up  and  carried.  W.  A.  Smith,  of  Virginia,  then  of- 
fered a  substitute  which  added  the  provision  "  that  when  an 
Annual  Conference  in  any  such  [slave]  state  or  territory 
shall  judge  it  expedient  to  admit  of  the  introduction  of  such 
testimony  within  its  bounds,  it  shall  be  allowed  to  do  so." 
The  substitute  was  promptly  laid  on  the  table.  In  the  after- 
noon the  subject  was  resumed,  and  it  was  moved  to  refer 
the  resolution  of  brother  Few  to  a  committee.  On  motion 
of  J.  A.  Collins  the  motion  to  refer  was  laid  on  the  table. 
The  substitute  of  W.  A.  Smith,  laid  on  the  table  in  the  morn- 
ing, was  again  called  up.  Whereupon  G.  Gary  offered  a 
substitute  for  W.  A.  Smith's  substitute,  which  the  chair  per- 
mitted to  be  entertained,  as  follows: 

Resolved,  .  .  .  i.  That  all  proceedings  of  the  Conference  in  the  case  of 
the  appeal  of  Silas  Comfort  (with  the  exception  of  the  decision  that  it  could 
not  be  entertained)  be,  and  they  hereby  are,  rescinded. 

2.  That  all  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference  on  the  subject  of  the  testi- 
mony of  colored  persons  be,  and  they  hereby  are,  rescinded. 

3.  That  the  several  Annual  Conferences  be  at  liberty  to  give  such  direc- 
tions to  their  members  as  may  be  deemed  expedient  on  the  subject  of  the 
testimony  of  colored  persons. 

This  substitute  for  a  substitute  was  laid  on  the  table.  It 
was  now  moved  once  more  to  lay  the  substitute  of  W.  A. 
Smith  on  the  table,  but  the  motion  was  lost.  Levi  Scott 
moved  to  amend  the  substitute  by  striking  out  "unjustifia- 
ble" and  inserting  "  unadvisable."  The  amendment  was 
laid  on  the  table.  The  question  on  W.  A.  Smith's  substi- 
tute was  about  to  be  taken  when,  on  motion,  the  yeas  and 
nays  were  ordered,  and  the  vote  resulted  in  a  tie — sixty-nine 
yeas  and  sixty-nine  nays.  This  was  the  crisis  at  which 
Bishop  Hedding,  as  before  noticed  in  these  pages,  refused 
to  give  the  casting  vote,  reversing  permanently  the  prece- 
dents of  the  General  Conference,  and  pronounced  the  sub- 
stitute lost.* 

It  now  seemed  as  if  every  resource  had  been  exhausted  to 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  87,  88. 


The  Eighth  Delegated  General  Conference,  184.0.  433 


modify  Dr.  Few's  much  debated  resolution.  But  on  Tues- 
day, June  2,  doubtless  in  view  of  the  recorded  tie  vote,  Bish- 
op Soule  offered  a  series  of  expository  resolutions,  which 
were  adopted  by  a  vote  of  ninety-seven  to  twenty-seven,  as 
follows: 

1.  Resolved,  That  in  the  decision  of  this  Conference,  in  the  case  of  the 
appeal  of  the  Rev.  Silas  Comfort,  it  is  not  intended  to  express  or  imply  that 
the  testimony  of  colored  persons  against  white  persons,  in  Church  trials,  is 
either  expedient  or  justifiable  in  any  of  the  slaveholding  states  or  territories 
where  the  civil  laws  prohibit  such  testimony  in  trials  at  law. 

2.  Resolved,  That  it  is  not  the  intention  of  this  Conference,  in  the  adoption 
of  the  resolution  of  the  Rev.  Ignatius  A.  Few,  of  Georgia,  in  regard  to  the 
admission  of  the  testimony  of  colored  persons,  to  prohibit  such  testimony  in 
Church  trials  in  any  of  the  states  or  territories  where  it  is  the  established 
usage  of  the  Church  to  admit,  and  where,  In  the  judgment  of  the  constitu- 
tional judicatories  of  the  Church,  such  testimony  may  be  admitted  with 
safety  to  the  peace  of  society,  and  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned. 

3.  Resolved,  That  it  is  not  the  intention  of  this  Conference,  in  either  of  the 
above  cases,  or  in  any  action  had  by  this  body,  to  express  or  imply  any  dis- 
trust or  want  of  confidence  in  the  Christian  piety  or  integrity  of  the  numer- 
ous body  of  colored  members  under  our  pastoral  care,  to  whom  we  are 
bound  by  the  bonds  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  for  whose  spiritual  and  eter- 
nal  interests,  together  with  all  our  fellow-men  of  every  color  and  in  every 
relation  and  condition  in  life,  we  will  never  cease  to  labor.* 

Surely  all  was  over  now.  But  one  more  shot  was  fired  be- 
fore this  parliamentary  battle  ceased.  The  chair  entertained 
another  motion  to  reconsider  I.  A.  Few's  resolution:  the 
motion  to  reconsider  was  laid  on  the  table  by  a  vote  of  sev- 
enty-six to  fifty-two. t  The  next  day  the  Conference  ad- 
journed sine  die. 

One  other  action  of  this  Conference  demands  notice  here. 
A  resolution,  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Itinerancy,  was 
adopted  that  "  when  a  member  of  an  Annual  Conference  in 
good  standing  shall  demand  a  located  relation,  the  Confer- 
ence shall  be  obliged  to  grant  it  to  him."  J  Accordingly 
the  vote  in  such  cases  must  be  regarded  as  purely  formal. 

When  we  review  the  entire  legislation  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1840,  the  conclusion  cannot  be  avoided  that  it 
marked  the  overwhelming  defeat  of  the  radical  agitators  in 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  109.  \Ibid.,  II.  109.  %Ibid.,  II.  107. 
28 


434 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  Church.  So  the  abolitionists  themselves  interpreted  it. 
In  1842  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Church  was  formed,  under 
the  leadership  of  Messrs.  Scott,  Horton,  Sunderland,  Luther 
Lee,  Brewster,  Ogden,  Matlack,  Prindle,  and  others — 
"men,"  adds  Bishop  McTyeire,  of  force  and  of  earnest 
convictions."  Nonslaveholding  was  made  a  condition  of 
membership.  About  twenty  thousand  members  withdrew 
from  the  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to 
enter  the  new  organization,  chiefly  in  New  England  and 
central  New  York.  But  the  old  Church  at  large  had  peace 
and  prosperity.  The  increase  of  the  membership  in  the 
quadrennium  of  1840-1844  far  exceeded  anything  previously 
known  in  the  history  of  American  Methodism.  In  1841  it 
was  57,473;  in  1842,60,883;  in  1843,156,624;  and  in  1844, 
102,831.  The  total  increase  for  the  four  years  was  about 
375,000.  A  mighty  harvest  was  gathered;  but  the  day  of 
division  was  at  hand. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1844:  THE  LOUISVILLE 
CONVENTION    AND    THE   ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 
METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH. 

SATURDAY,  May  17,  1845,  is  the  birthday  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  a  distinct  ecclesias- 
tical autonomy,  separate  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  On  that 
day  by  a  vote  of  ninety-four  ayes  to  three  noes  the  author- 
ized and  accredited  delegates  of  fifteen  Annual  Conferences 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  in  convention 
assembled,  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

Be  it  resolved,  by  the  Delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  General  Convention 
assembled,  That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and  necessary  to  erect  the  Annual 
Conferences  represented  in  this  Convention  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical 
connection,  separate  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  at  present  constituted ;  and  accordingly,  we, 
the  delegates  of  said  Annual  Conferences,  acting  under  the  provisional 
plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  do  solemnly 
declare  the  jurisdiction  hitherto  exercised  over  said  Annual  Conferences,  by 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  entirely  dis- 
solved; and  that  said  Annual  Conferences  shall  be,  and  they  her^hy  are  con- 
stituted, a  separate  ecclesiastical  connection,  under  the  provisional  plan  of 
separation  aforesaid,  and  based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  comprehending  the  doctrines  and  entire  moral,  ecclesiastical, 
and  economical  rules  and  regulations  of  said  Discipline,  except,  only,  In  so 
far  as  verbal  alterations  may  be  necessary  to  a  distinct  organization,  and  to 
be  known  by  the  style  and  title  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South* 

This  resolution  was  the  first  of  two  concluding  the  elab- 
orate report  presented  by  the  Committee  on  Organization 


Original  MS.  Journal  of  the  Louisville  Convention,  pp.  27,  28. 

(435) 


436  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


appointed  fifteen  days  before  on  motion  of  John  Early  and 
William  A.  Smith.  Of  this  committee  Dr.  Henry  B.  Bas- 
com  was  chairman  ;  it  was  composed  of  thirty  members,  two 
from  each  of  the  fifteen  Annual  Conferences  represented  in 
the  Convention,  as  follows:  Kentucky,  Henry  B.  Bascom 
and  Edward  Stevenson;  Missouri,  William  Patton  and  An- 
drew Monroe;  Holston,  Thomas  K.  Catlett  and  Thomas 
Stringfield ;  Tennessee,  Robert  Paine  and  Fountain  E.  Pitts ; 
North  CaroUna,  Hezekiah  G.  Leigh  and  Peter  Doub ;  Mem- 
phis, George  W.  D.  Harris  and  Moses  Brock;  Arkansas, 
John  Harrel  and  John  F.  Truslow;  Virginia,  John  Early 
and  William  A.  Smith;  Mississippi,  William  Winans  and 
Benjamin  M.  Drake;  Texas,  Francis  Wilson  and  Lyttleton 
Fowler;  Alabama,  Jefferson  Hamilton  and  Jesse  Boring; 
Georgia,  Lovick  Pierce  and  Augustus  B.  Longstreet;  South 
Carolina,  William  Capers  and  William  M.  Wightman ;  Flor- 
ida, Thomas  C.  Benning  and  Peyton  P.  Smith;  and  Indian 
Mission,  Edward  T.  Peery  and  David  B.  Gumming.* 

How  the  memories  throng  when  this  roll  of  mighty  names 
is  called !  No  tyros  were  they  in  questions  of  constitutional 
law  or  of  Methodist  doctrine,  history,  and  polity.  Some  of 
them  had  a  General  Conference  experience  stretching  back 
to  the  early  years  of  the  century.  They  represented  fifteen 
of  thirty-three  Annual  Conferences  into  which  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  had  been  divided  in  1844.  There 
were  present  in  attendance  on  the  sessions  of  the  Conven- 
tion three  of  the  five  Bishops  who  had  presided  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1844 — Joshua  Soule,  James  O.  Andrew, 
and  Thomas  A.  Morris.  The  senior  Bishop  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  and  Bishop  Andrew  were  the  Pres- 
idents of  the  Convention. 

Monday,  May  5,  the  following  resolutions  were  adopted; 
on  motion  of  Dr.  William  Winans, 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Organization  be  instructed  to  inquire 
whether  or  not  anything  has  transpired  during  the  past  year  to  render  it 
possible  to  maintain  the  unity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  under 


•Original Journal,  pp.9,  lO. 


The  General  Conference  of  184.4. 


437 


the  same  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  without  the  ruin  of  Southern 
Methodism ; 

And  on  motion  of  Benjamin  M.  Drake, 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Organization  be  and  are  hereby  in- 
structed to  inquire  into  the  propriety  of  reporting  resolutions,  in  case  a  di- 
vision should  take  place,  leaving  the  way  open  for  union  on  terms  which 
shall  not  compromise  the  interest  of  the  Southern,  and  which  shall  meet,  as 
far  as  may  be,  the  views  of  the  Northern  portion  of  the  Church.* 

Accordingly  the  Committee  on  Organization  reported  a 
second  resolution,  which  was  adopted  by  a  recorded  unan- 
imous vote  of  ninety-seven  ayes,  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  we  cannot  abandon  or  compromise  the  principles  of  ac- 
tion upon  which  we  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South;  never- 
theless, cherishing  a  sincere  desire  to  maintain  Christian  union  and  fraternal 
Intercourse  with  the  Church,  North,  we  shall  always  be  ready,  kindly  and 
respectfully  to  entertain,  and  duly  and  carefully  consider,  any  proposition 
or  plan,  having  for  its  object  the  union  of  the  two  great  bodies  in  the  North 
and  South,  whether  such  proposed  union  be  Jurisdictional  or  conventional.'^ 

But  the  question  of  a  separate  organization  was  not  left  ex- 
clusively to  this  committee,  large,  able,  and  deliberate  as  it 
was.  The  Convention  virtually  resolved  itself  into  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  on  the  one  vital  issue  that  had  brought 
its  members  together.  Monday,  May  5,  nearly  two  weeks 
before  the  committee's  report  was  submitted  and  adopted. 
Dr.  William  A.  Smith  and  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  introduced 
the  following  resolution,  which  at  their  request  was  laid  on 
the  table  to  be  taken  up  the  next  morning: 


♦Original  Journal,  p.  13.  "f'/i/t/.,  p.  29.  The  wrord  conventional, conclnAmg 
the  preceding  resolution,  is  substituted  by  the  term  connectional  in  the  pub- 
lished journal  of  the  Convention  contained  in  the  History  of  the  Organiza- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  published  in  1845  by  order 
of  the  Louisville  Convention.  (See  p.  187.)  And  so  it  is  in  printed  copies 
generally,  they  having  been  taken  from  this  source.  (See  Methodist 
Church  Property  Case,  p.  10.)  But  the  word  is  unmistakably  conventional 
in  the  original  journal.  The  meaning  seems  to  be  that  the  union  might 
again  become  jurisdictional  under  a  single  General  Conference  as  before;  or 
conventional,  perpetuating  the  distinct  General  Conference  jurisdictions, 
with  a  bond  of  union  in  some  common  representative  body.  The  suggestion 
is  not  without  its  value  to-day. 


438 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


Resolved,  by  the  Delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  in  the  Southern 
and  Southwestern  States,  in  General  Convention  assembled.  That  we  cannot 
sanction  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  by  remaining  under  the  ecclesiastic- 
al jurisdiction  of  that  body,  without  deep  and  lasting  injury  to  the  interests 
of  the  Church  and  the  country;  we,  therefore,  hereby  instruct  the  Commit- 
tee on  Organization  that  if,  upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject, they  find  that  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  to  hope  that  the  Northern 
majority  will  recede  from  their  position  and  give  some  safe  guaranty  for 
the  future  security  of  our  civil  and  ecclesiastical  rights,  that  they  report  in 
favor  of  a  separation  from  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  said  General 
Conference.* 

This  resolution  was  evidently  not  intended  either  to  hurry 
or  to  embarrass  or  to  anticipate  the  deliberations  of  the  com- 
mittee, but  rather  to  enlighten  that  important  body  by  a  full 
and  free  discussion  of  the  unprecedented  issue  in  the  open 
sessions  of  the  Convention  by  the  delegates  representing 
every  section  of  the  proposed  Church.  Hence  the  movers, 
so  far  from  pressing  its  immediate  passage,  asked  that  it  be 
tabled.  Tuesday  morning,  May  6,  when  the  resolution  was 
taken  up,  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  delivered  an  elaborate 
speech  in  support  of  it  which  seems  to  have  occupied  almost 
the  entire  session,  as  nothing  else  was  done  save  the  recep- 
tion and  reference  of  some  communications.  Wednesday, 
May  7,  Lovick  Pierce  spoke  to  the  resolution  for  an  hour 
and  a  half,  and  WilHam  Capers  followed  in  a  speech  of 
three-quarters  of  an  hour.  Thursday,  May  8,  the  considera- 
tion of  the  resolution  was  resumed  on  motion  of  Lewell 
Campbell,  who  sustained  it  by  a  few  earnest  and  appropriate 
remarks.  George  F.  Pierce  followed  him  in  an  eloquent 
speech  of  an  hour.  The  next  day  Dr.  Augustus  B.  Long- 
street  spoke  to  the  resolution  in  a  speech  that  ran  beyond 
the  hour  of  adjournment.  Saturday  morning,  May  lo,  he 
continued  his  speech  for  another  hour;  Dr.  Capers  offered 
some  explanatory  remarks;  and  Dr.  Robert  Paine  then 
claimed  the  floor  and  spoke  until  adjournment.  He  resumed 
Monday  morning.  May  I2,  and  Thomas  Crowder  occupied 
the  floor  until  adjournment.    Tuesday  morning  he  continued 


*Original  Journal,  pp.  13,  14. 


The  General  Conference  of  18^4.. 


439 


for  another  hour.  James  E.  Evans  evidently  thought  the 
"speaking"  had  continued  long  enough,  and  now  intro- 
duced a  resolution  designed  to  check  it,  except  by  members 
of  the  border  Conferences.  This  brought  out  George  W. 
Brush  and  Hubbard  H.  Kavanaugh,  of  Kentucky;  Thomas 
Stringfield,  of  Holston;  Wilham  Patton  and  Andrew  Mon- 
roe, of  Missouri;  and  William  Gunn  and  John  C.  Harrison, 
of  Kentucky,  closed  the  morning  session  with  speeches 
which  were  doubtless  strongly  against  a  separate  organiza- 
tion, as  both  of  them  voted  against  the  adoption  of  the  first 
resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Organization. 
Wednesday,  May  14,  Fountain  E.  Pitts,  Moses  Brock,  Wil- 
liam McMahon,  William  Gunn,  Benjamin  T.  Crouch,  Wil- 
liam A.  Smith,  George  W.  D.  Harris,  and  Thomas  K.  Cat- 
lett  continued  the  debate,  and  brother  Evans  withdrew  his 
resolution  for  the  close  of  the  "speaking."  The  original 
resolution  of  instructions  was  then  taken  up,  supported 
briefly  by  Joseph  Boyle  and  Jesse  Green,  of  Missouri,  and 
Lyttleton  Fowler,  of  Texas,  and  adopted  with  but  one  dis- 
senting vote.*  Thus  was  the  resolution  instructing  for  a 
separation  deliberately  and  almost  unanimously  adopted  aft- 
er an  almost  continuous  consideration  of  nine  days  in  the 
open  sessions  of  the  Convention,  where  every  delegate  was 
given  ample  opportunity  for  the  candid  and  complete  ex- 
pression of  his  views.  Meanwhile  the  committee,  we  may 
believe,  had  been  sitting  regularly  since  its  appointment;  not 
until  three  days  after  the  close  of  the  debate  in  the  Conven- 
tion, however,  was  its  great  report  brought  in  and  read  by 
Dr.  Bascom,  with  the  result  previously  noticed. t 

*For  all  the  preceding,  see  Original  Journal,  pp.  13-24. 

■j-The  full  report  of  the  Committee  on  Organization  is  not  embodied  in 
the  original  MS.  journal ;  it  is  printed,  however,  in  the  History  of  the  Or- 
ganization, pages  207-233,  as  well  as  in  the  work  entitled  "  Methodist  Church 
Property  Case."  Only  the  first  and  last  resolutions  on  pages  232,  233  of  the 
History  of  the  Organization,  however,  are  embraced  in  the  original  report 
of  the  committee.  The  intervening  resolutions,  as  appears  from  the  jour- 
nal, have  been  incorporated  from  other  reports  of  the  same  committee.  The 
author  recently  found  in  a  bookstore  a  fragment  of  the  original  report  in 
Bascom's  handwriting,  and  has  it  now  in  his  possession.  Its  identity  is  be- 
yond question. 


440 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


Having  carefully  reviewed  the  essential  conclusions  of  the 
Louisville  Convention,  and  the  method  by  which  they  were 
reached,  it  remains  to  notice  the  source  and  legitimacy  of 
the  authority  by  which  the  Convention  acted.  Such  a  con- 
sideration takes  us  back  to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  under 
which  the  Convention  professedly  acted,  and  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1844. 

It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  a  General  Conference  of 
abler,  broader,  juster,  or  more  deeply  religious.  Christian 
men  has  ever  assembled  in  American  Methodism  than  the 
General  Conference  of  1844.  I*  "^^^  the  Greene  Street 
Church,  New  York,  Wednesday,  May  1,  adjourning  a  little 
after  midnight  on  the  morning  of  June  11,  and  was  composed 
of  one  hundred  and  eighty  delegates  elect,  of , whom  one 
hundred  and  forty-nine  took  their  seats  on  the  first  day.  In  the 
spirit  of  their  Master  they  met  the  unexampled  and,  as  is  clear- 
ly demonstrated,  unmanageable  difficulties  of  a  situation  big 
with  the  future  of  the  Church  and  the  Nation.  It  was  a  sit- 
uation beyond  the  power  of  these  men  or  of  any  men  to  con- 
trol; and  when  this  fact  was  once  clearly  grasped,  majority 
and  minority  alike  faced  the  issue  with  an  heroic  courage  and 
gentle  firmness  that  were  Christlike,  and  with  an  insight  of 
clear  and  assured  wisdom  that  at  this  day  seems  little  short  of 
a  miracle.  Methodism  in  the  United  States  could  no  longer 
hold  together.  The  majority  could  not  be  expected  to  cut 
themselves  off;  with  great  unanimity  the  Conference  made 
the  best  possible  provision  for  the  independent  ecclesiastical 
organization  of  the  minority.  To  justify  these  broad  asser- 
tions, I  shall  have  to  enter  a  little  into  detail. 

And  first  let  us  notice  the  unmanageableness  of  the  situa- 
tion. Three  days  after  the  final  disposition  of  the  Harding 
case,*  Dr.  Capers  and  Dr.  Olin,  on  May  14,  moved  the  ap- 

*On  May  ii,  the  General  Conference,  notwithstanding  the  resolution 
passed  four  years  before  (see  above  pp.  427,  428),  now  directly  applicable  in  the 
exercise  of  its  own  appellate  jurisdiction,  refused,  by  a  recorded  vote  of  117 
nays  to  56  yeas,  to  reverse  the  action  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  sus- 
pending Francis  A.  Harding  from  his  ministerial  functions  on  account  of 
his  connection  with  slavery.— Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  33,  34. 


The  General  Conference  of  1844. 


pointment  of  a  committee  of  pacification  for  consultation 
with  the  Bishops.*  In  seconding  the  resolution  of  Dr.  Ca- 
pers, Dr.  Olin  said  in  part: 

Let  us  keep  away  from  the  controversy  until  brethren  from  opposite 
aides  have  come  together.  I  confess  I  turn  away  from  it  with  sorrow,  and 
a  deep  feeling  of  apprehension  that  the  difficulties  that  are  upon  us  now 
threaten  to  be  unmanageable.  I  feel  it  in  my  heart,  and  never  felt  on  any 
subject  as  I  do  on  this ;  and  I  will  take  it  on  me  to  say  freely  that  I  do  not 
see  how  Northern  men  can  yield  their  ground,  or  Southern  men  give  up 
theirs.  I  do,  indeed,  believe  that  if  our  affairs  remain  in  their  present  posi- 
tion, and  this  General  Conference  do  not  speak  out  clearly  and  distinctly  on 
the  subject,  however  unpalatable  it  may  be,  we  cannot  go  home  under  this 
distracting  question  without  a  certainty  of  breaking  up  our  Conferences.  I 
have  been  to  eight  or  ten  of  the  Northern  Conferences,  and  spoken  freely 
with  men  of  every  class,  and  firmly  believe  that,  with  the  fewest  exceptions, 
they  are  influenced  by  the  most  ardent  and  the  strongest  desire  to  maintain 
the  discipline  of  our  Church.  Will  the  Southern  men  believe  me  in  this — 
when  1  say  I  am  sincere,  and  well  informed  on  the  subject?  The  men  who 
stand  here  as  abolitionists  are  as  ardently  attached  to  Methodist  episcopacy 
as  you  all.  I  believe  it  in  my  heart.  Your  Northern  brethren,  who  seem 
to  you  to  be  arrayed  in  a  hostile  attitude,  have  suffered  a  great  deal  before 
they  have  taken  their  position,  and  they  come  up  here  distressed  beyond 
measure,  and  disposed,  if  they  believed  they  could,  without  destruction  and 
ruin  to  the  Church,  to  make  concession.  It  may  be  that  both  parties  will 
consent  to  come  together  and  talk  over  the  matter  fairly,  and  unbosom 
themselves,  and  speak  all  that  is  in  their  hearts;  and  as  lovers  of  Christ 
keep  out  passion  and  prejudice,  and  with  much  prayer  call  down  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  their  deliberations,  and  feeling  the  dire  necessity  that  oppresses 
both  parties,  they  will  at  least  endeavor  to  adopt  some  plan  of  pacification, 
that  if  they  go  a  way  it  may  not  be  without  hope  of  meeting  again  as  brethren. 
I  look  to  this  measure  with  desire  rather  than  with  hope.  With  regard  to 
our  Southern  brethren — and  I  hold  that  on  this  question,  at  least,  I  may 
speak  with  some  confidence — if  they  concede  what  the  Northern  brethren 
■wish,  if  they  concede  that  holding  slaves  is  incompatible  with  holding  their 
ministry,  they  may  as  well  go  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  as  to  their  own 
sunny  plains.  The  people  would  not  bear  it.  They  feel  shut  up  to  their 
principles  on  this  point.  But  if  our  difficulties  are  vnmaTUigeable,  let  our 
spirit  be  right.  If  we  must  part,  let  us  meet  and  pour  out  our  tears  together ; 
and  let  us  not  give  up  until  we  have  tried.  I  cannot  speak  on  this  subject 
without  deep  emotion.  If  we  push  our  principles  so  far  as  to  break  up  the 
Connection,  this  may  be  the  last  time  we  meet.  I  fear  it!  I  fear  it!  I  see 
no  way  of  escape.  If  we  find  any,  it  will  be  in  mutual  moderation,  in  call- 
ing for  help  from  the  God  of  our  fathers,  and  in  looking  upon  each  other  as 


*Gcn.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  42,  43.  The  committee,  who  were  to  confer  with  the  Bishops, 
consisted  of  Willi.nm  Capers,  Stephen  Olin,  William  Winant,  John  Early,  I^nldas  L.  Ham 
Une,  and  Phineas  Crandall. 


442 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


we  were  wont  to  do.  These  are  the  general  objects  I  had  in  view  in  sec- 
onding the  resolution,  as  they  are  of  him  who  moved  it. 

Dr.  Olin  sat  down  amid  deep  and  hallowed  excitement," 
and  on  motion  of  Dr.  Durbin  the  next  day  was  appointed  as 
a  time  of  fasting  and  humiliation  before  God,  and  prayer 
for  his  guidance  for  the  committee  of  pacification ;  but  four 
days  later  Bishop  Soule  reported  the  hopelessness  of  the 
committee's  consultations:  "they  are  unable,"  said  he,  "to 
agree  upon  any  plan  of  compromise  to  reconcile  the  views 
of  the  Northern  and  Southern  Conferences."  *  And  then 
the  investigation  of  Bishop  Andrew's  case  began.  For  the 
original  paper  of  Griffith  and  Davis, f  the  preamble  and  res- 
olution of  Finley  and  Trimble  were  offered  as  a  substituted 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  II.  54. 

■{•"Whereas,  the  Rev.  James  O.  Andrew,  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  has  become  connected  with  slavery,  as  com- 
municated in  his  statement  in  his  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Episcopacy,  which  reply  is  embodied  in  their  report.  No.  3,  ofiered  yes- 
terday; and  whereas  it  has  been,  from  the  origin  of  said  Church,  the  set- 
tled policy  and  the  invariable  usage  to  elect  no  person  to  the  office  of  Bish- 
op who  was  embarrassed  with  this  'great  evil,' as  under  such  circumstances 
it  would  be  impossible  for  a  Bishop  to  exercise  the  functions  and  perform 
the  duties  assigned  to  a  General  Superintendent  with  acceptance,  in  that 
large  portion  of  his  charge  in  which  slavery  does  not  exist;  and  whereas 
Bishop  Andrew  was  himself  nominated  by  our  brethren  of  the  slavehold- 
ing  states,  and  elected  by  the  General  Conference  of  1832,  as  a  candidate 
who,  though  living  in  the  midst  of  a  slaveholding  population,  was  neverthe- 
less free  from  all  personal  connection  with  slavery;  and  whereas,  this  is, of 
all  periods  in  our  history  as  a  Church,  the  one  least  favorable  to  such  an  in- 
novation upon  the  practice  and  usage  of  Methodism  as  to  confide  a  part  of 
the  itinerant  general  superintendency  to  a  slaveholder;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  the  Rev.  James  O.  Andrew  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  affec- 
tionately requested  to  resign  his  office  as  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church." — Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  May  22,  1844,  II.  64. 

J"  Whereas,  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing  anything 
calculated  to  destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  whereas 
Bishop  Andrew  has  become  connected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  other- 
wise, and  this  act  having  drawn  after  it  circumstances  which  in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  General  Conference  will  greatly  embarrass  the  exercise  of  his 
office  as  an  itinerant  General  Superintendent,  if  not  in  some  places  entirely 
prevent  it;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  he  desist 
from  the  exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains." — Gen. 
Conf.  Journals,  May  23,  1844,  II.  65,  66. 


The  General  Conference  of  i8^/f.. 


443 


and  the  debate  assumed  a  slightly  altered  phase.  Dr.  Olin 
again  spoke,  and  as  the  man,  by  his  endowments  and  his 
life,  spent  partly  in  the  South  and  partly  in  the  North,  best 
entitled  to  be  heard  then  and  best  entitled,  as  a  single  wit- 
ness, to  be  heard  now,  we  listen  to  him: 

I  know  the  difficulties  of  the  South.  I  know  the  excitement  that  is 
likely  to  prevail  among  the  people  there.  Yet  allowing  our  worst  fears  all 
to  be  realized,  the  South  will  have  this  advantage  over  us — the  Southern 
Conferences  are  likely,  in  any  event,  to  harmonize  among  themselves;  they 
will  form  a  compact  body.  In  our  Northern  Conferences  this  will  be  im- 
possible in  the  present  state  of  things.  They  cannot  bring  their  whole 
people  to  act  together  on  one  common  ground.  Stations  and  circuits  will 
be  so  weakened  andibroken  as  in  many  instances  to  be  unable  to  sustain 
their  ministry.  I  speak  on  this  point  in  accordance  with  the  conviction  of 
my  own  judgment,  after  having  traveled  three  thousand  miles  through  the 
New  England  and  New  York  Conferences,  and  if  some  action  is  not  hadon 
this  subject  calculated  to  hold  out  hope — to  impart  a  measure  of  satisfaction 
to  the  people — there  will  be  distractions  and  divisions  ruinous  to  souls,  and 
fatal  to  the  permanent  interests  of  the  Church.  I  feel,  sir,  that  if  this  great 
difficulty  shall  result  in  separation  from  our  Southern  brethren,  we  lose  not 
our  right  hand  merely,  but  our  very  heart's  blood. 

The  only  glimmer  of  light  in  the  palpable  darkness  came 
on  May  30th  and  31st.  May  30th  Dr.  George  Peck  sug- 
gested the  closing  of  the  debate,  and  Bishop  Andrew  begged 
that  the  question  should  be  taken.  The  motion  for  the  pre- 
vious question  having  failed.  Bishop  Hedding  requested  that 
the  Conference  should  not  hold  an  afternoon  session,  as  the 
Bishops  wished  for  an  opportunity  for  consultation  with  the 
view  of  offering  a  conciliatory  measure.*  The  next  morn- 
ing both  Bishop  Waugh  and  the  Secretary  read  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  a  communication,!  signed  by  himself  and 

*Gen,  Conf.  Journals,  May  30,  1844,  II.  73,  74. 

I"  To  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  E.  Church. 

"  Rev.  and  Dear  Brethren, — The  undersigned  respectfully  and  af- 
fectionately offer  to  your  calm  consideration  the  result  of  their  consultation 
this  afternoon  in  regard  to  the  unpleasant  and  very  delicate  question  which 
has  been  so  long  and  so  earnestly  debated  before  your  body.  They  have, 
with  the  liveliest  interest,  watched  the  progress  of  the  discussion,  and  have 
awaited  its  termination  with  the  deepest  solicitude.  As  they  have  pored 
over  this  subject  with  anxious  thought,  by  day  and  by  night,  they  have 
been  more  and  more  impressed  with  the  difficulties  connected  therewith, 
and  the  disastrous  results  which,  in  their  apprehension,  are  the  almost  in- 


444 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


Bishops  Soule,  Hedding,  and  Morris,  the  material  recom- 
mendation of  which  was  the  postponement  of  further  action 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  until  the  next  General  Confer- 
ence, since  the  decision  of  the  question  before  the  Confer- 
ence, whether  affirmatively  or  negatively,  would  **  most 
extensively  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony  "  of  Methodism. 
A  close  study  of  the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference, 


evitable  consequences  of  present  action  on  the  question  now  pending  be- 
fore you.  To  the  undersigned  it  is  fully  apparent  that  a  decision  thereon, 
whether  affirmatively  or  negatively,  will  most  extensively  disturb  the  peace 
and  harmony  of  that  widely-extended  brotherhood  which  has  so  eSectively 
operated  for  good  in  the  United  States  of  America  and  elsewhere  during 
the  last  sixty  years,  in  the  development  of  a  system  of  active  energy,  of 
which  union  has  always  been  a  main  element.  They  have,  with  deep  emo- 
tion, inquired,  Can  anything  be  done  to  avoid  an  evil  so  much  deprecated 
by  every  friend  of  our  common  Methodism?  Long  and  anxiously  have 
they  -waited  for  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  inquiry,  but  they  have  paused 
in  vain.  At  this  painful  crisis  they  have  unanimously  concurred  in  the 
propriety  of  recommending  the  postponement  of  further  action  in  the  case 
of  Bishop  Andrew  until  the  ensuing  General  Conference.  It  does  not  en- 
ter into  the  design  of  the  undersigned  to  argue  the  propriety  of  the  recom- 
mendation, otherwise  strong  and  valid  reasons  might  be  adduced  in  its  sup- 
port. They  cannot  but  think  that  if  the  embarrassment  of  Bishop  Andrew 
should  not  cease  before  that  time,  the  next  General  Conference,  represent- 
ing the  pastors,  ministers,  and  people  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences, 
after  all  the  facts  in  the  case  shall  have  passed  in  review  before  them,  will 
be  better  qualified  than  the  present  General  Conference  can  be  to  adjudicate 
the  case  wisely  and  discreetly.  Until  the  cessation  of  the  embarrassment,  or 
the  expiration  of  the  interval  between  the  present  and  the  ensuing  General 
Conference,  the  undersigned  believe  that  such  a  division  of  the  work  of  the 
general  superintendency  might  be  made,  without  any  infraction  of  a  consti- 
tutional principle,  as  would  fully  employ  Bishop  Andrew  in  those  sections 
of  the  church  in  which  his  presence  and  services  would  be  welcome  and 
cordial.  If  the  course  pursued  on  this  occasion  by  the  undersigned  be 
deemed  a  novel  one,  they  persuade  themselves  that  their  justification,  in  the 
view  of  all  candid  and  peace-loving  persons,  will  be  found  in  their  strong 
desire  to  prevent  disunion,  and  to  promote  harmony  in  the  church. 
"Very  respectfully  and  afiEectionately  submitted, 

"Joshua  Soule, 
"  Elijah  Hedding, 
"B.  Waugh, 
"T.  A.  Morris. 

"  Thursday  afternoon.  May  30,  1844." 

— Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  May  31,  1844,  II.  75,  76. 


The  General  Conference  of  1844.. 


445 


from  the  introduction  of  the  Harding  case  to  the  de- 
cisive vote  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  will  satisfy  every 
candid  mind  that  this  was  the  single  moment  and  this  the 
sole  measure  upon  which  there  was  the  least  hope  of  har- 
monizing the  difficulties  of  the  Conference.  It  came  before 
the  body  as  the  unanimous  recommendation  of  the  Board  of 
Bishops.  Even  after  the  withdrawal  of  Bishop  Hedding's 
signature,  which  took  place  the  next  day,  the  measure  was 
tabled  only  by  ninety-five  ayes  to  eighty-four  noes — a  change 
of  six  votes  from  aye  to  no  would  have  reversed  the  fate  of 
the  measure.  Here  perished  not  merely  the  last  hope,  but 
the  only  hope  that  had  appeared  at  any  time  during  the  Con- 
ference. The  South  unanimously  supported  the  recommen- 
dation of  the  Bishops,  and  such  men  from  the  North  as  Olin, 
Hibbard,  Sehon,  Ruter,  Stamper,  Durbin,  Levi  Scott,  and 
others,  together  with  the  entire  Baltimore  delegation,  with 
the  exception  of  Griffith,  voted  with  them.*  But  after  mus- 
tering their  last  man,  they  lacked  six  votes — and  they  failed. 
In  withdrawing  his  signature,  June  i,  Bishop  Hedding  said 
that  without  persuasion  he  had  signed  the  communication  as  a 
peace  measure,  but  since  signing  facts  had  come  to  his 
knowledge  which  induced  him  to  believe  it  would  not  make 
peace. t  Beyond  this  general  statement,  the  **  facts"  were 
not  given  to  the  public  until  twenty-seven  years  afterwards. 
In  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review  (New  York)  for  April, 
1871,  the  Rev.  James  Porter,  a  New  England  delegate,  and 
one  of  the  actors,  gives  the  history: 

Abolitionists  regarded  this  [the  proposed  council  of  Bishops]  as  a  most 
alarming  measure.  Accordingly,  the  delegates  of  the  New  England  Con- 
ferences were  immediately  called  together,  and  after  due  deliberation 
unanimously  signed  a  paper  declaring  in  substance  that  it  was  their  solemn 
conviction  that  if  Bishop  Andrew  should  be  left  by  the  General  Conference 
in  the  exercise  of  episcopal  functions,  it  would  break  up  most  of  our 
churches  in  New  England;  and  that  the  only  way  they  could  be  holden  to- 
gether would  be  to  secede  in  a  body,  and  invite  Bishop  Hedding  to  preside 
over  them.  The  proposition  was  also  concurred  in  by  some  of  our  most 
distinguished  laymen  who  were  present,  and  a  committee  of  two  was  ap- 


•  See  the  recorded  vote,  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  June  i,  1844,  ^I-  8a,  83.  tGen.  Conf.  Journals, 
June  I,  1844,  n.  81. 


446 


The  Delegated  General  Cotiferences. 


pointed  to  communicate  this  action  to  Bisiiop  Hedding  before  lie  should 
meet  with  his  colleagues.  But  so  much  time  was  consumed  by  the  meeting, 
and  in  copying  the  document,  that  we  were  too  late,  and  did  not  see  him, 
deeming  it  dangerous  to  our  interests  to  call  him  out,  believing  it  would  be 
construed  and  used  in  a  way  to  defeat  our  object.* 

Immediately  after  the  communication  of  the  Bishops  had 
been  laid  on  the  table,  the  substitute  of  Messrs.  Finley  and 
Trimble,  as  noticed  above,  was  adopted  by  a  recorded  vote 
of  one  hundred  and  ten  ayes  to  sixty-eight  noes.f 

Wednesday,  June  5,  a  declaration  was  presented,  and  ac- 
tion had  upon  it  as  follows: 

A.  B.  Longstreet,  in  behalf  of  the  delegations  from  the  Southern  and 
Southwestern  Conferences,  presented  the  following  declaration,  which  wa« 
read: 

"The  delegates  of  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states  take  leave 
to  declare  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
that  the  continued  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a 
portion  of  the  church;  the  frequent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  General 
Conference;  and  especially  the  extra-judicial  proceedings  against  Bishop 
Andrew,  which  resulted,  on  Saturday  last,  in  the  virtual  suspension  of  him 
from  his  office  as  Superintendent,  must  produce  a  state  of  things  in  tha 
South  which  renders  a  continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Con- 
ference over  these  Conferences  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  minis- 
try in  the  slaveholding  states. 

"Virginia  Conference—].  Early,  W.  A.  Smith,  T.  Crowder,  L.  M.  Lee. 
Kentucky— a.  B.  Bascom,  W.  Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  E.  Stevenson,  B.  T. 
Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush.  Missouri— W.  W.  Redman,  W.  Patton,  J.  C.  Berry- 
man,  J.  M.  Jameson.  ffolstoti—E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T.  Stringfield. 
Georgia— G.  F.  Pierce,  W.  J.  Parks,  L.  Pierce,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans.  A. 
B.  Longstreet.  JVorf/i  Carolina—].  Jameson,  P.  Doub,  B.  T.  Blake,  /lli- 
nois—].  Stamper.  Memphis— G.  W,  D.  Harris,  Wm,  McMahon,  T.  Joyner, 
S.  S.  Moody.  Arkansas—].  C.  Parker,  W.  P.  Ratcliffe,  A.  Hunter,  Mis- 
sissippi—.  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake,  J.  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers.  Texas— "L.  Fow- 
ler. Alabama—].  Boring,  J.  Hamilton,  W.  Murrah,  G.  Garrett.  Tennessee— 
R.  Paine,  J.  B.  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Maddin.  South  Carolina— Vf. 
Capers,  W.  M.  Wightman,  C.  Betts,  S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C.  Walker." 

A  motion  was  made  by  C.  Elliott  to  refer  this  declaration  to  a  committee 
of  nine.  This  gave  rise  to  some  discussion;  and  the  previous  question  wa» 
moved,  and  the  call  sustained.  The  select  committee  of  nine  was  ordered, 
and  the  paper  referred  to  them.  J 

The  same  day  J.  B.  McFerrin,  of  Tennessee,  offered  the 


*Meth.  Quart.  Rev.,  N.  Y.,  April,  1871,  p.  246.  fGen.  Conf.  Journal, 
June  I,  1844,  IL  83,  84.    %Ibid.,  IL  109. 


The  General  Conference  of  18^.^. 


447 


following  Resolution  of  Instructions  to  the  Committee  of 
Nine  ordered  by  the  preceding  action  : 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the 
communication  of  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  Conferences  be  in 
structed,  provided  they  cannot  in  their  judgment  devise  a  plan  for  an  ami- 
cable adjustment  of  the  difficulties  now  existing  in  the  Church,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  to  devise,  if  possible,  a  constitutional  plan  for  a  mutual  and 
friendly  division  of  the  Church.  J.  B.  McFerrik, 

Tobias  Spicer.  * 

T.  Crowder's  motion  to  strike  out  the  word  "  constitution- 
al "  did  not  prevail,  and  the  resolution  was  adopted.  The 
chair  announced  the  committee  as  follows:  Robert  Paine, 
Glezen  Filmore,  Peter  Akers,  Nathan  Bangs,  Thomas 
Crowder,  Thomas  B.  Sargent,  William  Winans,  Leonidas 
L.  Hamline,  and  James  Porter. t 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  iii. 

•fGen.  Conf.  Journals,  II.  iii.  The  Journal  is  clear;  and  the  next  morn- 
ing it  was  read  and  approved  without  correction.  It  instructed  the  Com- 
mittee of  Nine,  in  a  given  contingency,  "to  devise,  if  possible,  a  consiitutional 
flan  for  a  mutual  and  friendly  division  of  the  Church"  and  is  thus  vital  to  the 
purpose  and  fror-ince  of  the  committee  and  their  report.  Neither  the  Jour- 
nal nor  the  reported  Debates  contains  any  hint  of  any  other  attempt  to 
amend  this  resolution  than  that  recorded  above.  But,  in  the  biography  of 
Mr.  Hamline,  it  is  alleged  that  he  arose  and  said,  "  I  will  not  go  out  with  the 
committee  under  such  instructions,"  and  added, "  Will  the  mover  change  so  as 
to  read:  '  That  in  case  no  plan  of  amicable  adjustment  can  be  found,  the  com- 
mittee be  instructed  to  inquire  if  there  be  a  constitutional  mode  for  dividing 
thefundsolihe  Church?  '  "  Mr.  Hamline's  biographer  adds,  "after  some  hes- 
itation, reluctantly,  the  amendment  was  accepted."  (Hibbard's  Hamline,  p. 
138.)  On  all  which,  I  remark:  (i)  The  Journal,  recorded  by  the  Secretary  and 
approved  by  the  General  Conference,  stands  as  official  and  final ;  (2)  According 
to  the  Journal,  the  committee  was  not  announced  until  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Resolution  of  Instructions, — even  if  we  may  assume  that  he  was  privately 
informed  of  his  appointment,  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  a  man  of  Mr.  Ham- 
line's  delicacy  would  publicly  assume  his  membership  in  the  committee  on 
the  floor  of  the  Conference;  (3)  The  rejection  of  one  amendment  is  re- 
corded in  the  Journal ;  there  was,  therefore,  opportunity  to  offer  amend- 
ments, but  of  another  no  mention  is  made;  (4)  Mr.  Hamline  may  very  prob- 
ably have  made  a  suggestion,  or  asked  a  question  of  the  mover,  to  which  no 
reply  was  made ;  silence  may  have  been  taken  for  consent,  when  Mr.  McFer- 
rin  meant  only  to  allow  Mr.  Hamline  to  press  or  drop  his  own  point  as  he 
chose. 

But  the  mo«t  remarkable  statement  in  this  effort  to  correct  the  Journal 


448  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 

June  8th  the  Plan  of  Separation  was  reported  by  Robert 
Paine,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Nine.  Its  adoption 
was  moved  by  Dr.  Charles  Elliott,  who  supported  his  motion 
with  an  apposite  and  convincing  speech,  drawn  alike  from 
the  ancient  analogies  of  Church  history  and  the  modern 
needs  of  Methodism,  and  declaring  that  "the  measure  con- 
templated was  not  schism  but  separation  for  their  mutual 
convenience  and  prosperity."*  The  first  resolution  was 
adopted  by  a  recorded  vote  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-five 
yeas  to  eighteen  nays,  and  the  second  by  one  hundred  and 
thirty-nine  yeas  to  seventeen  nays,  as  follows: 

Whereas  a  declaration  has  been  presented  to  this  General  Conference, 
with  the  signatures  of  fifty-one  delegates  of  the  body,  from  thirteen  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states,  representing  that,  for  various  reasons 
enumerated,  the  objects  and  purposes  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  Church 


remains  to  be  noticed.  "The  next  morning,"  continues  Dr.  Hibbard,  in  his 
biography  of  Bishop  Hamline,  p.  139,  "  upon  the  usual  reading  of  the  min- 
utes for  final  correction,  Dr.  Peck  [whose  memory  of  the  attempt  to  amend 
seems  to  accord  with  Mr.  Hamline's]  was  absent  from  the  city  on  duty. 
Mr,  Hamline  Immediately  called  the  attention  of  Dr.  Bangs  to  the  point, 
and  urged  him  to  call  attention  of  Conference  to  the  same.  Dr.  Bangs  felt 
reluctant  to  open  a  controversy,  and  thought  it  would  make  no  material  dif- 
ference. Mr.  Hamline,  feeling  that  he  was  a  younger  member  and  a  com- 
parative stranger  in  the  Conference,  shrank  from  volunteering  to  arrest  the 
matter  against  the  judgment  of  seniors,  and  having  expressed  his  opinion  to 
Dr.  Bangs  that  the  phraseology  would,  in  iaw,  be  against  us,  he  resigned 
it  to  others."  So,  because  of  the  reluctance  of  Dr.  Bangs  and  of  the  timid- 
ity of  Mr.  Hamline,  who,  both  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  resolution 
and  of  the  approval  of  the  Journal,  is  represented  as  keenly  alive  to  the  fun- 
damental importance  of  the  measure,  Dr.  McFerrin's  resolution  was  allowed 
to  pass  permanently  and  irrevocably  into  the  official  record.  Whatever 
his  private  reflections,  Mr.  Hamline  is  on  record  as  approving  the  Journal. 
Doctor  (afterwards  Bishop)  J.  T.  Peck's  recollections  may  be  seen  in  the 
Methodist  Quarterly  Revie-ut  for  April,  1870,  at  the  close  of  an  article  on 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,"  which  is,  on  the  whole,  the  broadest  and 
fairest  exposition  of  the  Northern  view  of  the  situation  and  action  in  1844 
that  I  have  seen.  It  breathes  a  very  different  spirit  from  an  article  by  Dr. 
D.  A.  Whedon  with  the  title,"  Did  the  Church,  South,  Secede?"  which  ap- 
peared  in  the  same  number  of  the  Review.  I  am  not  aware  that  Dr.  Mc- 
Ferrin  has  left  anything  on  record  on  the  point  discussed  in  this  footnote, 
or  that  his  attention  was  ever  called  to  the  recollections  of  Bishops  Hamline 
and  Peck.  It  would  be  interesting  to  hear  his  testimony. 
♦Debates,  p.  219. 


The  General  Conference  of  184.4.. 


449 


organization  cannot  be  successfully  accomplished  by  them  under  the  juris- 
diction of  this  General  Conference  as  now  constituted  ;  and  whereas,  in  the 
event  of  a  separation,  a  contingency  to  which  the  declaration  asks  attention 
as  not  improbable,  we  esteem  it  the  duty  of  this  General  Conference  to 
meet  the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity ;  there- 
fore, 

1.  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  in  Gen- 
eral Conference  assembled,  That  should  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  states  find  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection, the  following  rule  shall  be  observed  with  regard  to  the  Northern 
boundary  of  such  connection:  All  the  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences, 
adhering  to  the  Church  in  the  South,  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers of  said  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences,  shall  remain  under  the  un- 
molested pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church;  and  the  ministers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall  in  nowise  attempt  to  organize  churches 
or  societies  within  the  limits  of  the  Church,  South,  nor  shall  they  attempt 
to  exercise  any  pastoral  oversight  therein;  it  being  understood  that  the 
ministry  of  the  South  reciprocally  observe  the  same  rule  in  relation  to  sta- 
tions, societies,  and  Conferences,  adhering,  by  vote  of  a  majority,  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church:  provided,  also,  that  this  rule  shall  apply  only 
to  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences  bordering  on  the  line  of  division,  and 
not  to  interior  charges,  which  shall  in  all  cases  be  left  to  the  care  of  that 
Church  within  whose  territory  they  are  situated. 

2.  Resolved,  That  ministers,  local  and  traveling,  of  every  grade  and  of- 
fice in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that 
Church,  or,  without  blame,  attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South.* 

The  operation  of  the  Plan,  with  all  its  provisions  save  one, 
to  be  hereafter  noticed,  is  conditioned  expressly  and  solely 
upon  the  initiative  and  decision  of  the  Annual  Conferences 
which  were  expected  to  form  the  new  jurisdiction :  "  Should 
the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states  find  it 
necessary  to  unite,  .  .  .  the  following  rule  shall  be  ob- 
served," etc.  Despite  this  explicit  and  unequivocal  state- 
ment, it  continues  to  be  asserted  down  to  the  present  day, 
that  the  operation  of  the  Plan  was  made  dependent  on  the 
action  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  North  and  South,  in 
the  alteration  of  the  Sixth  Restrictive  Rule.  But  the  unalter- 
able records  of  the  undivided  Church  stand  as  a  perpetual 
and  unimpeachable  witness.  On  these  records  the  action  of 
the  Southern  Church  reposes  securely.  The  resolution  of 
the  Plan  concerning  the  Sixth  Restrictive  Rule  was  adopted 


*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  June  8,  1844,  II.  131,  132,  135. 


450  The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 

by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  forty-six  yeas  to  ten  nays  and 
recommended  "to  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  at  their  first 
approaching  sessions,  to  authorize  a  change  of  the  Sixth  Re- 
strictive Rule,  so  that  the  full  clause  shall  read  thus:  '  They 
shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor 
of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the 
benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and 
worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  and 
to  such  other  -purposes  as  maybe  deternimed  upon  by  the  votes 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference.''  "  * 
Criticism  has  continued  to  the  present  of  the  action  of  the 
Southern  delegates  in  their  meeting  the  day  after  the  ad- 
journment of  the  General  Conference.  With  the  utmost  ex- 
ercise of  respect  and  charity,  it  is  difficult  to  refrain  from 
characterizing  this  criticism  as  childish.  It  is  true  that  the 
Plan  of  Separation  left  the  initiative  and  decision  with  the 
Annual  Conferences  in  the  Southern  States;  and  there  the 
delegates  of  those  Conferences,  when  they  met  in  New 
York,  June  nth,  also  left  it.  The  official  records  show  un- 
exampled unanimity,  spontaneity,  and  promptness  on  the 
part  of  those  Conferences  at  their  next  following  sessions. 
The  delegates  at  New  York,  however,  were  their  trusted 
leaders  and  representatives.  They  would  have  been  guilty  of 
an  act  of  supreme  and  unpardonable  folly  if  they  had  al- 
lowed their  constituents  to  drift  through  the  stormy  summer 
of  1844  without  chart  or  compass.  It  was  their  solemn  duty 
to  provide  against  chaos.  Everybody  recognized  the  sepa- 
ration as  inevitable.  Every  line  of  the  proceedings  and  de- 
bates of  1844  forces  the  fact  upon  the  notice  of  the  impartial 
reader.  To  anticipate  and  forestall  heat,  haste,  and  unwise 
or  divided  counsels,  the  Southern  delegates  issued  an  ad- 
dress suggesting  that  nothing  be  done  till  the  Conferences 
concerned  could  meet  by  their  representatives  in  a  general 
convention,  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  nearly  a  year  later.  These 

*Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  June  8,  1844,  II.  132,  133,  135,  136.  The  Journal 
gives  147  yeas  and  13  nays;  but  the  actual  count  ie  as  above.  Unrecorded 
additions  or  changes  may  have  been  subsequently  made. 


The  General  Cofiferetice  of  1844.. 


representatives  were  to  be  instructed  on  the  points  on  which 
action  was  contemplated,  and  the  instructions  to  be  con- 
formed "to  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  the  members  of 
the  Church."  What  else  could  these  men  have  done? 
Had  they  done  less  they  would  have  shown  themselves  un- 
worthy of  the  position  of  representative  leaders  and  guides 
to  which  they  had  been  chosen.  Their  familiarity  with  all 
the  forces  which  had  brought  on  this  unavoidable  crisis,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  with  the  opinions  and  situation  of  the 
Church  at  home,  on  the  other,  could  not  be  doubted.  To 
have  failed  to  indicate  a  line  of  action  at  this  juncture  would 
have  been  to  brand  themselves  as  incapable  and  unworthy 
holders  of  leadership,  and  to  have  proved  themselves  untrue 
to  the  section  and  people  whose  rights  under  the  "Disci- 
pline as  it  is  "  they  had  strenuously  represented.  They  were 
men  of  Issachar,  who  had  understanding  of  the  times  and 
knew  well  w^hat  Israel  ought  to  do. 

It  remains  to  add  a  few  words  on  the  constitutional  valid- 
ity of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  under  whose  authority  and 
sanction  the  Louisville  Convention  met.  Upon  his  report 
as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Organization  at  the  Louis- 
ville Convention,  and  similar  documents  in  1844  and  1846 — 
all  alike  free  from  the  bewilderments  of  his  dazzling  rhet- 
oric— rather  than  upon  his  masterpieces  of  pulpit  eloquence, 
must  the  enduring  fame  of  Bishop  Bascom  rest.  Should  any 
one  read  one  of  his  published  sermons,  together  with  one  of  his 
exhaustive  reports,  the  documents  would  afford  superabound- 
ing  evidence  to  any  "higher  critic  "  of  moderate  wits  that  the 
two  papers  could  never  have  been  written  by  the  same  hand. 
Vocabulary,  structure  of  sentences,  method  of  reasoning,  mat- 
ter, and  rhetoric  all  differ  so  widely  as  to  leave  few  points  of 
relation  and  comparison.  The  reasons  are  obvious,  but  we 
may  not  digress  here  to  consider  them.  From  Dr.  Bascom's 
report  at  Louisville  I  quote  a  single  paragraph : 

On  the  subject  of  the  legitimate  right,  and  the  full  and  proper  authority 
of  the  Convention  to  institute,  determine,  and  finally  act  upon  the  inquiry, 
referred  to  the  committee  to  deliberate  and  report  upon,  the  committee  en- 
tertain no  doubt  -whatever.    Apart  from  every  other  consideration  which 


452 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


might  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  question,  the  General  Conference  of  1844, 
in  the  Plan  of  jurisdictional  Separation  adopted  by  that  body,  gave  full  and 
express  authority  to  "the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states," 
to  judge  of  the  propriety,  and  decide  upon  the  necessity,  of  organizing  a 
"separate  ecclesiastical  connection  "  in  the  South,  And  not  only  did  the 
General  Conference  invest  this  right  in  "the  Annual  Conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  states,"  without  limitation  or  reserve,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  in- 
vestment, and  exclusively  with  regard  to  every  other  division  of  the  Church, 
and  all  other  branches  or  powers  of  the  government,  but  left  the  method  of 
official  determination  and  the  mode  of  action,  in  the  exercise  or  assertion  of 
the  right,  to  the  free  and  untrammeled  discretion  of  the  Conferences  inter- 
ested. These  Conferences,  thus  accredited  by  the  General  Conference  to 
judge  and  act  for  themselves,  confided  the  right  and  trust  of  decision  and 
action  in  the  premises  to  delegates  regularly  chosen  by  these  bodies  respect- 
ively, upon  a  uniform  principle  and  fixed  ratio  of  representation,  previously 
agreed  upon  by  each  in  constitutional  session,  and  directed  them  to  meet  in 
general  convention,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  May,  1845,  for  this  and  other 
purposes,  authorized  by  the  General  Conference,  at  the  same  time  and  in 
the  same  way.  All  the  right  and  power,  therefore,  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, in  any  way  connected  with  the  important  decision  in  question,  were 
duly  and  formally  transferred  to  "the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding  states,"  and  exclusively  invested  in  them.  And  as  this  investment 
was  obviously  for  the  purpose,  that  such  right  and  power  might  be  exercised 
by  them,  in  any  mode  they  might  prefer,  not  inconsistent  with  the  terms 
and  conditions  of  the  investment,  the  delegates  thus  chosen,  one  hundred 
in  number,and  representing  sixteen  Annual  Conferences,  under  commission 
of  the  General  Conference,  here  and  now  assembled  in  convention,  have  not 
only  all  the  right  and  power  of  the  General  Conference  as  transferred  to 
"the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states,"  but  in  addition,  all 
the  right  and  power  of  necessity  inherent  in  these  bodies,  as  constituent 
parties,  giving  birth  and  power  to  the  General  Conference  itself,  as  the  com- 
mon federal  council  of  the  Church.  It  follows  hence,  that  for  all  the  pur- 
poses specified  and  understood  in  this  preliminary  view  of  the  subject,  the 
convention  possesses  all  the  right  and  power,  both  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence and  the  sixteen  "Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states," 
jointly  and  severally  considered.  The  ecclesiastical  and  conventional  right, 
therefore,  of  this  body,  to  act  in  the  premises,  andact  conclusively,  irrespect- 
ive of  the  whole  Church,  and  all  its  powers  of  government  beside,  is  clear 
and  undoubted.  As  the  moral  right,  however,  to  act  as  proposed  in  the 
General  Conference  Plan  of  jurisdictional  Separation,  rests  upon  entirely 
different  grounds,  and  will  perhaps  be  considered  as  furnishing  the  only 
allowable  warrant  of  action,  notwithstanding  constitutional  right,  it  may  be 
necessary  at  least  to  glance  at  the  grave  moral  reasons,  creating  the  neces- 
sity, the  high  moral  compulsions,  by  which  the  Southern  Conferences  and 
Church  have  been  impelled  to  this  course  of  action,  which  it  is  the  intention 
of  this  report  to  explain  and  vindicate,  as  not  only  right  and  reasonable,  but 
Indispensable  to  the  character  and  welfare  of  Southern  Methodism.* 
•History  o{  Organization,  pp.  3o8,  209;  Methodist  Churcli  Property  Case,  pp.  123,  124- 


The  General  Conference  of  1844..  '  453 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  New  York  July  2, 1845,  Bishops  Hedding,  Waugh, 
Morris,  and  Janes  being  present,  and  Bishop  Hamline  being 
represented  by  letter,  the  following  action  was  taken : 

Resolved,  That  the  Plan  reported  by  the  select  committee  of  nine  at  the 
last  General  Conference  and  adopted  by  that  body  In  regard  to  a  distinct 
ecclesiastical  connection,  should  such  a  course  be  found  necessary  by  the  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states,  is  regarded  by  us  as  of  binding  obliga- 
tion in  the  premises  so  far  as  our  administration  is  concerned.* 

Bishops  Janes  and  Morris  were  also  anxious  to  carry  out 
the  published  plan  of  episcopal  visitation  and  hold  the  An- 
nual Conferences  to  which  they  were  appointed  in  the  South 
in  the  autumn  of  1845,  believing  that  the  action  of  the  Con- 
vention did  not  terminate  their  episcopal  responsibility  and 
jurisdiction,  which  might  end  only  with  the  meeting  of  the 
first  Southern  General  Conference.  But  in  this  they  were 
overruled  by  their  episcopal  colleagues;  and  exchanges 
were  made,  especially  between  Bishops  Soule  and  Morris, 
by  which  the  Southern  Conferences  were  held  that  year  by 
Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew.  Beyond  inviting  Soule  and 
Andrew  to  adhere  South  under  the  Plan,  the  Louisville  Con- 
vention took  no  action  with  regard  to  the  election  of  new  or 
the  jurisdiction  of  existing  Bishops,  leaving  the  whole  ques- 
tion open  until  the  meeting  of  the  first  General  Conference 
in  May,  1846.  Bishops  Janes  and  Morris  earnestly  con- 
tended for  their  right  to  go  South  in  1845-46  at  the  Bishops' 
meeting  in  July,  1845,  but  for  the  sake  of  peace  agreed  to 
abide  the  decision  of  their  colleagues.  Speaking  for  Bishop 
Janes  and  himself  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Soule,  of  which  only 
fragments  have  hitherto  been  pubHshed,  Bishop  Morris  says : 
"We  have  not  changed  our  opinion  on  the  main  principle; 
that  is,  we  do  not  think  that  mere  conventional  action  de- 
stroys our  jurisdiction  over  the  Southern  Conferences.  Had 
we  been  left  to  our  own  convictions,  without  any  further  ad- 
vice or  direction  from  our  colleagues,  we  should  have  felt 
bound  by  our  official  responsibility  to  go  forward  in  our  reg- 


*I  have  Italicized  a  single  clause. 


454  The  Dele^^ated  General  Conferences. 


ular  division  of  the  work  South,  and  take  the  consequences, 
fearful  as  they  might  have  been."*  Had  these  two  good 
Bishops  been  permitted  to  carry  out  their  peaceful  purpose, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  their  presidency  would  have  been  en- 
tirely acceptable  in  the  Southern  Conferences ;  their  exam- 
ple might  have  exerted  a  restraining  influence  on  the  repudi- 
ationists  who  largely  controlled  the  Northern  press  during 
the  quadrennium;  and  it  is  barely  possible  that  the  General 
Conference  in  1846  might  have  devised  some  measure  by 
which  the  episcopacy  might  have  continued,  for  a  time  at 
least,  a  bond  of  union  between  the  two  General  Conference 
jurisdictions.  Bishop  Janes,  elected  by  Southern  votes,  and 
presented  for  ordination  by  Drs.  Capers  and  Pierce,  was  a 
last  precious  gift  of  the  Southern  to  the  Northern  wing  of 
Episcopal  Methodism. 

But  the  reactionary  General  Conference  of  1848  repudi- 
ated, as  far  as  it  could,  the  Plan  of  Separation,  whose  validity 
was  afterwards  fully  sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States. t    Conservative  men  like  Dr.  Olin  and  others, 


*  Unpublished  letter  in  possession  of  the  writer. 

■{■After  reciting  the  assembling  and  action  of  the  Louisville  Convention, 
the  Supreme  Court  holds: 

"The  division  of  the  Church,  as  originally  constituted,  thus  became  com- 
plete; and  from  this  time  two  separate  and  distinct  organizations  have  taken 
the  place  of  the  one  previously  existing.    .    .  . 

"It  can  no  more  be  affirmed,  either  in  point  of  fact  or  of  law,  that  they 
[the  preachers  north]  are  traveling  preachers  in  connection  with  the  Meth- 
odist Church  as  originally  constituted,  since  the  division,  than  of  those  in 
connection  with  the  Church,  South.  Their  organization  covers  but  about 
half  of  the  territory  embraced  within  that  of  the  former  Church;  and  In- 
cludes within  it  but  a  little  over  two-thirds  of  the  traveling  preachers. 
Their  General  Conference  is  not  the  General  Conference  of  the  old  Church, 
nor  does  it  represent  the  interest,  or  possess  territorially  the  authority  of  the 
same.  ...  It  may  be  admitted  that,  within  the  restricted  limits,  the  or- 
ganization and  authority  are  the  same  as  the  former  Church.  But  the  same 
is  equally  true  in  respect  to  the  organization  of  the  Church,  South.    .    .  . 

"But  we  do  not  agree  that  this  division  was  made  without  the  proper 
authority.  On  the  contrary,  we  entertain  no  doubt  but  that  the  General 
Conference  of  1844  was  competent  to  make  it;  and  that  each  division  of  the 
Church,  under  the  separate  organization,  is  just  and  legitimate,  and  can 
claim  as  high  a  sanction,  ecclesiastical  and  temporal,  as  the  Methodist  Epls- 


The  General  Conference  of  184^. 


455 


despite  their  commanding  influence  in  other  departments  of 
Church  activity,  were  not  honored  with  reelection  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1848.  The  Church  North  was  unwilling 
to  stand  on  the  record  of  such  men.  To  the  credit  of  Chris- 
tianity and  of  human  nature,  it  should  be  known  that  but  few 
who  in  1844  ordained  the  Plan  in  1848  repudiated  it.  On 

copal  Church  first  founded  in  the  United  States.  The  same  authority 
which  founded  that  Church  in  1784  has  divided  it,  and  established  two  sep- 
arate and  independent  organizations,  occupying  the  place  of  the  old  one. 

"In  1784,  when  the  Church  was  first  established,  and  down  till  1808,  the 
General  Conference  was  composed  of  all  the  traveling  preachers  In  that 
connection.  This  body  of  preachers  founded  U  by  organizing  its  govern- 
ment, ecclesiastical  and  temporal,  established  its  doctrine  and  discipline,  ap- 
pointed hs  Superintendents,  or  Bishops,  its  ministers  and  preachers,  and 
other  subordinate  authorities,  to  administer  its  polity  and  promulgate  its 
doctrines  and  teachings  throughout  the  land. 

It  cannot,  therefore,  be  denied — indeed,  it  has  scarcely  been  denied — 
that  this  body,  while  composed  of  all  the  traveling  preachers,  possessed  the 
power  to  divide  it,  and  authorize  the  organization  and  establishment  of  the 
two  separate  independent  Churches.  The  power  must  necessarily  be  re- 
garded as  inherent  in  the  General  Conference.  As  they  might  have  con- 
structed two  ecclesiastical  organizations  over  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  originally,  if  deemed  expedient,  in  the  place  of  one,  so  they  might,  at 
any  subsequent  period,  the  power  remaining  unchanged." 

After  reciting  the  Six  Restrictive  Rules,  and  the  contrary  argument 
based  thereupon,  the  decision  continues: 

"Subject  to  these  restrictions,  the  delegated  Conference  possessed  the 
same  powers  as  when  composed  of  the  entire  body  of  preachers.  And  it 
will  be  seen  that  these  relate  only  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  its  repre- 
sentation in  the  General  Conference,  the  Episcopacy,  discipline  of  its 
preachers  and  members,  the  Book  Concern  and  Charter  Fund.  In  all  other 
respects,  and  in  everything  else  that  concerns  the  welfare  of  t*ie  Church, 
the  General  Conference  represents  the  sovereign  power  the  same  as  before. 
This  is  the  view  taken  by  the  General  Conference  itself,  as  exemplified  by 
the  usage  and  practice  of  that  body.  In  1820,  they  set  off  to  the  British 
Conference  of  Wesleyan  Methodists  the  several  circuits  and  societies  in 
Lower  Canada.  And  in  1S28,  they  separated  the  Annual  Conference  of 
Upper  Canada  from  their  jurisdiction,  and  erected  the  same  into  a  distinct 
and  independent  Church.  These  instances,  together  with  the  present  di- 
vision, in  1844,  furnish  evidence  of  the  opinions  of  the  eminent  and  expe- 
rienced men  of  this  Church  in  these  several  Conferences,  of  the  power 
claimed,  which,  if  the  question  was  otherwise  doubtful,  should  be  regarded 
as  decisive  in  favor  of  it.  We  will  add  that  all  the  Northern  Bishops,  five 
in  number,  in  council  in  July,  1845,  acting  under  the  Plan  of  Separation,  re- 
garded It  as  of  binding  obligation,  and  conformed  their  action  accordingly." 


456 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  repudiating  resolution  there  were  one  hundred  and  thir- 
ty-two ayes  and  ten  noes ;  of  these  one  hundred  and  forty- 
two  voters  but  forty-one  had  been  members  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1844;  of  these  forty-one  eleven  had  voted 
against  the  Plan ;  and  of  the  remaining  thirty  there  were 
five  who  voted  against  repudiation,  leaving  but  twenty-five 
-  members  who  repudiated  their  own  action  of  four  years  be- 
fore.* "  If  it  be  said,"  adds  Bishop  McTyeire  in  his  History, 
*'  that  only  those  of  the  Conference  of  1844  who  were  pledged 
to  repudiation  were  reelected  in  1848,  it  speaks  well  for  the 
majority  of  1844;  and  while  it  shows  that  even  good  men 
may  sometimes  mistake  policy  for  principle,  it  does  not  make 
repudiation  righteous." 

As  against  a  Church  which  accepts  theoretically  and  prac- 
tically the  judicial  supremacy  of  the  General  Conference,  it 
may  be  sufficient  to  rest  the  validity  of  the  Plan  on  a  clear  and 
applicable  principle.  The  enactment  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844,  in  providing  the  Plan  of  Separation,  is  ab- 
solutely valid,  constitutional,  irreversible,  and  binding,  be- 
cause in  the  very  act  of  exercising  its  legislative  function 
the  General  Conference  was  also  in  full  possession  of  its 
supreme  judicial  powers,  and  thus  the  highest  judicatory  of 
the  Church  pronounced  the  Plan  constitutional  in  the  very 
moment  that  the  highest  legislature  of  the  Church  enacted 
it  into  a  law.  The  Journal  of  1844,  in  general,  and  the 
Plan  of  Separation,  in  particular,  without  explanation  or  de- 
fense, without  addition  or  subtraction,  as  a  finished  and  com- 
plete ofllicial  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  last  General 
Conference  of  the  undivided  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America,  acknowledged  by  those  who  deny  the  validity  of 

*  "  That  assembly  [the  General  Conference  of  1848]  has  been  well  charac- 
terized as  '  a  reactionary  body  elected  in  a  revolutionary  period.'  Very  few 
of  the  members  in  1844  reappeared.  The  temper  of  the  Conference  was 
averse  to  a  Southern  Methodism;  nearly  all  its  members  having  been  elect- 
ed on  a  pledge  to  repudiate  the  Plan  of  Separation." — The  General  Confer- 
ences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Prepared  by  a  Literary  Staff  un- 
der the  Supervision  of  Rev.  Lewis  Curts,  D.D.  (Cincinnati  and  New  York, 
1900),  pp.  311.  312. 


The  Getter al  Conference  of  1844. 


457 


the  Plan  as  at  once  its  supreme  legislature  and  its  highest 
judicial  tribunal,  must  stand  as  the  strictly  legal  and  consti- 
tutional basis  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
Nothing  done  by  the  Louisville  Convention  or  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  in  1846  can  strengthen  it; 
nothing  done  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church, 
North,  in  1848,  at  which  the  party  of  the  other  part  in  this 
solemn  and  binding  contract  was  absent  and  unrepresented, 
can  destroy  or  weaken  it.  (See  Appendix  IV.) 

But  the  better  era  of  fraternity  and  federation  has  dawned ; 
with  an  account  of  which  it  is  fitting  that  this  volume  should 
close.  By  the  first  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  held  in  Petersburg,  Va.,  in  May, 
1846,  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  was  "  delegated  to  visit  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  be 
held  in  Pittsburg,  May  i,  1848,  to  tender  to  that  body  the 
Christian  regards  and  fraternal  salutations  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South."* 
In  reply  to  a  communication  from  Dr.  Pierce,  the  General 
Conference  at  Pittsburg  resolved  "  That,  while  we  tender  to 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Pierce  all  personal  courtesies,  and  invite  him  to 
attend  our  sessions,  the  General  Conference  does  not  con- 
sider it  proper,  at  present,  to  enter  into  fraternal  relations  with 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South."  t  Dr.  Pierce  de- 
clined a  merely  personal  reception,  and  responded  to  this  res- 
olution: "You  will  therefore  regard  this  communication  as 
final  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
She  can  never  renew  the  offer  of  fraternal  relations  be- 
tween the  two  great  bodies  of  Wesleyan  Methodists  in  the 
United  States.  But  the  proposition  can  be  renewed  at  any 
time,  either  now  or  hereafter,  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  And  if  ever  made  on  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of 
Separation,  as  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844, 

*Dr.  Pierce's  Credentials,  Gen.  Conf.  Journals,  M.  E.  Church,  III.  33; 
M.  E.  Church,  South,  I.  100,  loi. 

IGen.  Conf.  Journals,  M.  E.  Church,  III.  16,  21. 


458 


The  Delegated  General  Conferences. 


the  Church,  South,  will  cordially  entertain  the  proposi- 
tion." 

With  this  declaration  and  pledge  the  matter  rested  until 
Dr.  A.  S.  Hunt,  ("Albert,  the  beloved,")  Dr.  C.  H.  Fowler, 
and  General  Clinton  B.  Fisk  appeared  as  the  fraternal  del- 
egates of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  held 
in  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May,  1874.  They  were  cordially  re- 
ceived in  their  official  character,  according  to  the  pledge  of 
Dr.  Pierce,  who  was  present  in  Louisville  as  a  member  of 
the  General  Conference ;  and  fully  accomplished  the  objects 
of  their  mission,  making  a  most  delightful  impression  on 
their  Southern  brethren.  The  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  not  only  appointed  Dr. 
Lovick  Pierce,  Dr.  James  A.  Duncan,  and  Dr.  Landon  C. 
Garland  as  fraternal  delegates  to  the  ensuing  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  took  a  step 
in  advance  by  providing  for  a  commission,  and  appointing 
commissioners,  to  adjust  pending  differences.  When  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
held  at  Baltimore  in  1876,  had  responded  with  similar  ac- 
tion, the  Joint  Commissions  assembled  in  Cape  May,  New 
Jersey,  in  August,  1876,  and  adopted  without  a  dissenting 
voice  a  Declaration  and  Basis  of  Fraternity  as  follows : 

Status  of  the  Methodist  Eftscofal  Church  and  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  and  their  Coordinate  Relations  as  Legitimate  Branches  of  Episcopal 
Methodism. 

Each  of  said  Churches  is  a  legitimate  branch  of  Episcopal  Methodism 
in  the  United  States,  having  a  common  origin  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  organized  in  1784;  and  since  the  organization  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  was  consummated  in  1845  by  the  voluntary  exer- 
cise of  the  right  of  the  Southern  Annual  Conferences,  ministers  and  mem- 
bers, to  adhere  to  that  Communion,  it  has  been  an  evangelical  Church,  reared 
on  Scriptural  foundations;  and  her  ministers  and  members,  with  those  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  constituted  one  Methodist  family, 
though  in  distinct  ecclesiastical  connections. 

At  this  writing  (December,  1903)  the  "one  Methodist 
family"  is  busily  engaged,  through  Joint  Commissions,  in 
preparing  a  common  catechism,  a  common  hymnal,  and  a 


The  General  Conference  of  1844. 


459 


common  order  of  worship;  while  missionary  comity  has  es- 
tablished for  each  Church  distinct  fields  of  foreign  operation 
and  a  common  publishing  house  at  Shanghai,  China. 

Dr.  Pierce,  in  age  and  feebleness  extreme,  was  not  able  to 
appear  in  person  at  the  General  Conference  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  in  1876.  But  he  sent  an  epistle.  His 
language  in  regard  to  difficulties  then  unadjudicated  may  well 
be  applied  to  any  that  remain : 

"  They  are  delicate,  sensitive  things,  never  to  be  settled 
by  chafing  speeches;  but,  as  we  believe,  they  can  be  speed- 
ily PRAYED  AND  TALKED  TO  DEATH." 


APPENDICES. 


I.  Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  All  the  Edi- 
tions OF  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  America  from  1785  to  1808. 
II.  Fletcher's  Suggestions  to  Wesley  for  the  Or- 
ganization of  Methodism. 

III.  Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1808. 

IV.  The  Constitutional  Validity  of  the  Plan  of  Sep- 

aration. 

V.  The  Beginning  of  General  Conference  Govern- 
ment IN  American  Methodism. 
VI.  The  Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Govern- 
ment and  the  Earliest  Official  Use  of  the 
Term  General  Conference. 
VII.  The  First  Discipline  and  the  Large  Minutes  of 
1780. 


APPENDIX  1. 


CRITICAL.  DESCRIPTIVE  CATALOGUE  OF  ALL  THE  EDITIONS  OF 
THE  DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH  IN  AMERICA  FROM  1 785  TO  1808. 

'T'HE  Title-pages  given  in  this  Catalogue  are  taken  in  every 


1  case  from  the  Disciplines  themselves,  and  the  descrip- 
tive and  critical  remarks  are  based  on  famihar  use  or  per- 
sonal examination  of  the  volumes.  Nothing  herein  contained 
has  been  taken  at  second  hand.  All  of  these  Disciplines, 
with  an  approximately  complete  set  of  the  later  editions,  are 
in  my  own  collection,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Disci- 
pline of  1787,  for  the  use  of  which  I  am  indebted  to  Mr. 
Robert  T.  Miller,  of  Cincinnati,  O.,  an  honored  member  of 
the  Book  Committee  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

All  editions  of  the  Discipline  from  1785  to  1801,  without 
exception,  thirteen  volumes  in  all,  bear  on  their  title-pages 
the  words  "Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America  "  as  the 
proper  title  of  the  Church  organized  in  1784 :  hence  the  adop- 
tion of  that  name  in  the  title  of  this  Catalogue  and  in  the  pages 
of  this  History.  A  complete  set  of  the  Disciplines  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America  from  1785  to  1808 
is  composed  of  sixteen  volumes,  all  of  which  are  registered 
and  described  in  the  following  pages. 


Minutes  Of  Several  Conversations  Between  The  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D. 
The  Rev.  Francis  Asbury  And  Others,  At  a  Conference  Begun  In  Balti- 
more, in  the  State  of  Maryland,  On  Monday,  the  z'jth  of  December,  In 
the  Year  1784.  Composing  a  Form  of  Discipline  For  the  Ministers, 
Preachers  and  Other  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  In 
America.  Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Charles  Cist,  in  Arch-Street,  the 
Corner  of  Fourth-Street.    M,  DCC,  LXXXV. 

This  First  Discipline,  though  quite  rare,  is  not  so  scarce  as 
that  of  1787  (known  to  exist  in  only  three  copies)  or,  prob- 


I. 


1785- 


(463) 


464       Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


ably,  that  of  1788,  which  it  is  difficult  to  secure.  It  was  put 
to  press  by  Dr.  Coke,  one  of  the  Presidents  of  the  Christmas 
Conference,  between  the  8th  and  the  19th  of  January,  1785, 
immediately  on  the  adjournment  of  that  body,  and  therefore 
has  the  highest  historical  value  for  determining  what  was 
done  at  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America.  It  consists  of  an  unbroken  series  of  eighty-one 
questions  and  answers.  It  is  bound  up  with  the  Sunday 
Service  compiled  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  brought  over  in  sheets 
by  Dr.  Coke,  whose  title-page  reads  as  follows: 

The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  in  North  America.    With  other 
Occasional  Services.    London:  Printed  in  the  year  MDCCLXXXIV. 

The  contents  of  this  Sunday  Service,  as  indicated  by  separate 
headings,  after  the  tables  of  proper  lessons,  are  as  follows: 

(1)  The  Order  for  Morning  Prayer  Every  Lord's  Day.    (Pp.  7-14.) 

(2)  The  Order  for  Evening  Prayer  Every  Lord's  Day.    (Pp.  14-19  ) 

(3)  The  Litany.    (Pp.  20-26.) 

(4)  A  Prayer  and  Thanksgiving  to  be  used  every  Lord's  Day.  (Pp.  26, 
27.) 

(5)  The  Collects,  Epistles,  and  Gospels,  To  be  used  throughout  the  year. 
(Pp.  27-124.) 

(6)  The  Order  for  the  Administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  (Pp.  125- 
139) 

(7)  The  Ministration  of  Baptism  of  Infants.    (Pp.  139-143.) 

(8)  The  Ministration  of  Baptism  to  such  as  are  of  Riper  Years.  (Pp. 
143-149-) 

(9)  The  Form  of  Solemnization  of  Matrimony.    (Pp.  149-155.) 

(10)  The  Communion  of  the  Sick.    (Pp.  155,  156.) 

(11)  The  Order  for  the  Burial  of  the  Dead.    (Pp.  156-161.) 

(12)  Select  Psalms.    (Pp.  162-279.) 

(13)  The  Form  and  Manner  of  Making  and  Ordaining  of  Superintend- 
ants,  Elders,  and  Deacons.    (Pp.  280-305.) 

(a)  The  Form  and  Manner  of  Making  of  Deacons. 

(b)  The  Form  and  Manner  of  Ordaining  of  Elders. 

(c)  The  Form  of  Ordaining  of  a  Superintendant. 

(14)  Articles  of  Religion  (twenty-four  in  number).    (Pp.  306-314.) 

These  titles  are  all  verbally  exact,  being  taken  directly 
from  the  book  itself.  The  preface  is  signed  by  John  Wesley 
and  dated  Bristol,  September  9,  1784.  Bound  up  with  the 
Minutes  and  the  Sunday  Service  is  also  "A  Collection  of 
Psalms  and  Hymns,"  whose  contents  do  not  here  concern  us. 


Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines.  465 


I  have  also  seen  a  copy  in  which  the  circular  letter  of  Mr. 
Wesley  "To  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  brethren  in 
North  America,"  is  inserted.  In  such  a  complete  copy  the 
pagination  is  as  follows :  Circular  letter,  iii ;  Sunday  Service, 
314;  "  Minutes  "  or  "  Form  of  Discipline,"  35  ;  Psalms  and 
Hymns,  104;  Contents,  4  pages. 

II. 
1786. 

The  General  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America,  forming  the  Constitution  of  the  said  Church. 

These  General  Minutes  fill  pages  322-355  of  a  volume  usu- 
ally known  as  the  second  edition  of  the  Sunday  Service. 
There  is  no  distinct  title-page  for  the  Minutes  constituting  the 
Disciphne,  or  "forming  the  Constitution,"  of  the  Church; 
the  title  cited  above  is  simply  a  general  heading  at  the  top  of 
page  322.  The  title-page  of  the  Sunday  Service  which  in- 
cludes this  Discipline  is  as  follows : 

The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  In  the  United  States  of  America. 
With  other  Occasional  Services.  London:  Printed  by  Frys  and  Couch- 
man,  Worship-Street  Upper-Moorfields,  1786. 

This  Sunday  Service  contains  Twenty-five  Articles  of  Reli- 
gion: it  has  usually  been  assumed  that  the  XXIIId  Article, 
on  civil  government,  was  added  by  the  Christmas  Conference. 
But  no  evidence  has  been  found  to  support  this  conjecture. 
It  is  more  probable  that  the  Article  was  added  by  Mr.  Wesley 
himself,  ( i )  because  he  formulated  the  Twenty-four  sent  over 
by  Dr.  Coke;  (2)  because  the  second  Sunday  Service,  like 
the  first,  was  printed  in  England;  (3)  because  Mr.  Wesley, 
as  expressly  stipulated  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, still  regarded  himself  as  the  controlling  head  of  the 
American  Methodists;  and  (4)  because,  chiefly,  copies  of 
the  Sunday  Service  exist  in  which  the  XXIIId  Article  differ* 
wholly  from  the  same  Article  in  the  American  book,  being 
adapted  to  a  Church  organized  under  the  British  government. 
There  is  added  to  the  Book  the  same  "  Collection  of  Psalms 
and  Hymns"  with  date  "MDCC  LXXXVI."  The  pagi- 
50 


466      Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


nation  of  a  complete  book  is,  Sunday  Service  and  General 
Minutes,  355;  Psalms  and  Hymns,  104;  Contents,  4  pages. 

III. 
1787. 

A  Form  of  Discipline,  For  ttie  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  Members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America.  Considered  and  approved  at 
a  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  On  Monday 
the  27th  of  December,  1784:  In  Which  The  Reverend  Thomas  Coke, 
LL.D.  and  the  Reverend  Francis  Asbury,  presided.  Arranged  under 
proper  Heads,  and  Methodized  in  a  more  acceptable  and  easy  Manner. 
New  York:  Printed  by  W.  Ross,  in  Broad-Street.   M.  DCC.  LXXXVII. 

This  is  the  rarest  of  all  the  DiscipHnes.  Only  three  known 
copies  exist.  One  is  in  the  library  of  Drew  Theological  Sem- 
inary ;  another  is  in  the  library  of  Randolph-Macon  College ; 
a  third  is  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Robert  T.  Miller.  It  is  a 
pamphlet  of  forty-four  pages,  with  an  Index  of  three  pages, 
and  was  arranged  by  Bishop  Asbury  and  John  Dickins.  Its 
scarcity  arises  from  the  fact  that  it  was  published  in  pamphlet 
form :  all  other  Disciplines  were  published  as  bound  volumes. 
It  might  be  called  the  "Bishops'  Discipline,"  as  initthe  "Su- 
perintendents ' '  were  first  called  ' '  Bishops. ' '  Its  pubHcation 
occasioned  some  excitement  throughout  the  "Connection," 
as  the  change,  though  subsequently  confirmed  by  the  Confer- 
ence, had  not  been  authorized  by  that  body.  It  has  been 
three  times  reprinted,  ( i )  by  the  Rev.  C.  S.  Nutter,  who  has 
also  reprinted  the  Disciplines  of  1785, 1786, 1788,  and  1789; 
(2)  by  W.  A.  Ingham,  of  Cleveland,  O.;  and  (3),  in  fifty 
numbered  copies,  by  Mr.  W.  B.  Ketcham,  of  New  York.  All 
three  reprints  are  in  my  collection :  Ketcham's  No.  47  I  have 
corrected  throughout  with  my  own  hand,  conforming  it  to 
every  peculiarity  of  Mr.  Miller's  original.  It  has,  therefore, 
for  all  real  use,  the  value  of  a  fourth  copy.  I  find  I  have 
made  corrections,  mostly  insignificant,  on  every  page  except 
one — page  39.  This  Discipline  is  divided  into  thirty-one 
sections,  the  titles  of  which  are  taken  from  Mr.  Miller's 
copy  as  follows : 


Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines.  467 


Section  I. 

Of  the  Rise  of  Methodism  (so  called)  in  Europe  and  America.    Page  3- 

Sec /ion  II. 

On  the  Method  of  holding  a  Conference,  and  the  Business  to  be  done 
therein.    Page  4. 

Section  III. 

On  the  Nature  and  Constitution  of  our  Church.    Page  5. 

Section  IV. 

On  the  constituting  of  Bishops,  and  their  Duty.    Page  6. 

Section  V. 

On  the  constituting  of  Elders,  and  their  Duty.    Page  7. 

Section  VI. 

On  the  constituting  of  Deacons,  and  their  Duty.    Page  8. 

Section  VII. 

On  the  Method  of  receiving  Preachers,  and  their  Duty.    Page  11. 
Section  VIII. 

Of  the  Collections  that  are  made,  and  how  the  Money  is  to  be  expended. 
Page  15. 

Section  IX. 
On  Class-Meetings.    Page  16. 

Section  X. 

On  the  Duty  of  Preachers,  to  God,  themselves  and  one  another.    Page  17. 

Section  XI. 

On  the  Necessity  of  Union  among  ourselves.    Page  20. 

Section  XII. 

Of  the  Trial  of  those  who  think  they  are  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
preach.    Page  21. 

Section  XIII. 
Of  the  Spirit  and  Truth  of  Singing.    Page  22. 

Section  XIV. 

Rules  by  which  we  should  continue,  or  desist  from,  Preaching  at  any 
Place.    Page  23. 

Section  XV. 

On  the  Matter  and  Manner  of  Preaching,  and  other  Public  Exercises. 
Page  23. 

Section  XVI. 
Against  Antinomianism.    Page  24. 

Section  XVII. 

How  to  provide  for  the  Circuits  in  the  Time  of  Conference,  and  to  pre- 
serve and  increase  the  Work  of  God.    Page  26. 


468      Critical  Desert f  live  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


Section  XVIII. 

Of  employing  our  Time  profitably,  when  we  are  not  traveling,  or  not  en- 
gaged in  Public  Exercise*.    Page  27. 

Section  XIX. 

On  Baptism.    Page  28. 

Section  XX. 
On  the  Lord's  Supper.    Page  29. 

Section  XXI. 
On  unlawful  Marriages.    Page  29. 

Section  XXII. 

On  Perfection.    Page  30. 

Section  XXIII. 

On  Dress.    Page  31. 

Section  XXIV. 

On  the  Privileges  granted  to  serious  Persons  that  are  not  of  the  Society 
Page  32. 

Section  XXV. 

On  visiting  from  House  to  House;  guarding  against  those  Sins  that  are 
•o  common  to  Professors,  and  inforcing  Practical  Religion.    Page  32. 

Section  XXVI. 
On  the  Instruction  of  Children.    Page  38. 

Section  XXVII. 

On  Building  Churches, and  on  the  Ordertobe  observed  therein.   Page  39. 
Section  XXVIII. 

On  raiting  a  general  Fund  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel.    Page  40. 
Section  XXIX. 

Of  the  Method  of  raising  a  Fund  for  the  Superannuated  Preachers,  and 
the  Widows  and  Orphans  of  Preachers.    Page  42. 

Section  XXX. 
Concerning  Cokesbury  College.    Page  43. 

Section  XXXI. 

On  the  Printing  of  Books,  and  the  Application  of  the  Profits  arising 
therefrom.    Page  44. 

1788. 

A  Form  of  Discipline,  For  the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  Members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America.  Considered  and  approved  at 
a  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland.  On  Monday 
the  27th  of  December,  1784:  In  Which  The  Reverend  Thomas  Coke, 
LL.D.  and  the  Reverend  Francis  Asbury,  presided.  Arranged  under 
proper  Heads,  and  methodised  in  a  more  acceptable  and  easy  Manner. 
With  some  other  useful  Pieces  annexed.  Elizabeth-Town:  Printed  by 
Shepard  Kollock.    M.  DCC.  LXXXVIII. 


Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


The  "useful  Pieces  annexed  "  are  the  General  Rules  (nine- 
teenth edition,  signed  by  Coke  and  Asbury,  and  dated  May 
28,  1787),  the  Articles  of  Religion,  "An  Address  to  the 
Friends  and  Annual  Subscribers  to  the  Support  of  Cokes- 
bury-College,"  "  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination, 
Election,  and  Reprobation,"  and  "  Serious  Thoughts  on  the 
Infallible,  Unconditional  Perseverance  of  all  that  have  once 
experienced  Faith  in  Christ."  All  except  the  last  have  sep- 
arate title-pages,  with  publisher  and  date  as  recited  above. 
It  is  divided  into  thirty-four  Sections,  with  an  Index  of  three 
pages.  A  complete  copy  has  117  pages,  exclusive  of  the 
Index. 

V. 
1789. 

A  Form  of  Discipline,  For  the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  Members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  Considered  and  approved  at  a 
Conference  Held  at  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday  the 
27th  of  December,  1784:  In  Which  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury, 
Presided:  Arranged  under  proper  Heads,  and  methodised  in  a  more  ac- 
ceptable and  easy  Manner:  With  some  other  useful  Pieces  annexed.  The 
Fifth  Edition.  New-York:  Printed  bv  William  Ross,  in  Broad-Street, 
M.  DCC.  LXXXIX. 

The  "  useful  Pieces  annexed  "  are  the  Articles  of  Religion, 
and  the  "  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,"  etc.,  with 
separate  title-pages,  on  which  publisher  and  date  are  as  given 
above ;  and,  with  distinct  headings  but  no  title-pages,  "  Seri- 
ous Thoughts,"  etc.,  and  "A  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Per- 
fection, as  believed  and  taught  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Wesley, 
From  the  year  1725,  to  the  year  1765," 

There  are  thirty-five  Sections,  Section  XXXV.  being  the 
General  Rules.  The  first  Episcopal  Address,  in  the  form 
of  a  Preface  to  the  Discipline,  appears  in  this  edition.  It  is 
signed  by  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  and  dated 
"Charles-Town  [Charleston,  S.  C],  March  20,  1789." 
The  pagination  is  as  follows:  Address,  iv;  Discipline,  50; 
Index,  5  ;  Useful  Pieces,  131:  a  complete  copy  should  there- 
fore contain  190  pages. 


470      Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


VI. 
I79». 

A  Form  of  Discipline,  For  the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  Members  (now 
comprehending  the  Principles  and  Doctrines)  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  America,  Considered  and  approved  at  a  Conference  Held 
at  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday  the  27th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1784:  In  Which  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury,  Presided:  Ar- 
ranged under  proper  Heads,  and  methodised  in  a  more  acceptable  and 
easy  Manner.  The  Sixth  Edition.  Philadelphia:  Printed  by  R.  Aitken 
&  Son,  No.  22.  Market  Street,  and  sold  by  John  Dickins,  No.  43.  Fourth 
Street.    M.  DCC.  XC. 

The  principal  new  feature  of  this  title-page — "  now  compre- 
hending the  Principles  and  Doctrines  " — marks  the  transfor- 
mation of  the  "useful  Pieces  annexed"  into  sections  of  the 
Discipline  itself :  Section  XXXV.  is  the  Articles  of  Religion ; 
Section  XXXVI.  "  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination," 
etc.;  Section  XXXVII.  "  Serious  Thoughts,"  etc ;  Section 
XXXVIII,  "A  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection  "  ;  and 
Section  XXXIX.  "An  Extract  on  the  Nature  and  Subjects 
of  Christian  Baptism"  :  this  last  Section  has  a  separate  title- 
page. 

This  Discipline  is  composed  of  thirty-nine  Sections,  and 
the  pagination  is  as  follows:  To  the  close  of  the  Address,  iv; 
the  Discipline,  256,  including  the  Contents  of  4  pages. 

VII. 

1791. 

A  Form  of  Discipline,  For  The  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  Members  (norr 
comprehending  the  Principles  and  Doctrines)  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  America,  Considered  and  approved  at  a  Conference  Held 
at  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday,  the  27th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1784:  In  Which  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury,  Presided:  Ar- 
ranged under  proper  Heads,  and  methodised  in  a  more  acceptable  and 
easy  Manner.  The  Seventh  Edition.  Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Joseph 
Crukshank,  No.  91,  High-Street;  And  Sold  by  John  Dickins,  No.  43, 
Fourth-Street,  Near  the  Corner  of  Race-Street.  MDCCXCI. 

In  this  Discipline  the  General  Rules  constitute  Section 
XXXV.;  the  Articles  of  Religion,  Section  XXXVI.;  the 
"Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,"  etc.,  Section 
XXXVIL;    the    "Serious    Thoughts,"     etc..  Section 


Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines.  471 

XXXVIII.;  the  "Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection," 
Section  XXXIX.;  and  "An  Extract  on  the  Nature  and 
Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism,"  Section  XL. — the  same 
doctrinal  sections  being  continued,  as  in  the  Discipline  of 
1790.  The  entire  number  of  Sections  is  forty,  and  the  pagi- 
nation is  iv,  222,  including  Contents  of  4  pages. 

VIII. 
1792. 

The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Amer- 
ica, Revised  and  Approved  at  the  General  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore, 
In  the  State  of  Maryland,  in  November,  1792:  In  Which  Thomas  Coke, 
and  Francis  Asbury,  Presided  :  Arranged  under  proper  Heads,  and  meth- 
odised in  a  more  acceptable  and  easy  Manner.  The  Eighth  Edition. 
Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Parry  Hall,  No.  149,  Chesnut  Street,  And  Sold 
by  John  Dickins,  No.  182,  Race  Street,  Between  Fifth  and  Sixth  Street. 
M.  DCC.  XCII 

Here  for  the  first  time  the  title  "  Doctrines  and  DiscipHne," 
which  has  continued  in  use  to  the  present  day,  and  approval 
by  a  body  styled  "the  General  Conference,"  meet  us.  From 
the  evolution  of  the  title  and  of  the  book  itself,  as  noticed  in 
the  preceding  pages,  it  is  evident  that  the  word  "Doctrines," 
when  it  first  appeared  on  the  title-page  of  the  Discipline,  re- 
ferred to  the  doctrinal  sections  incorporated  in  the  book  it- 
self. Thus  in  the  Discipline  of  1792  the  Articles  of  Religion 
are  brought  forward  to  the  position  of  Chapter  I.,  Section 
II.;  Chapter  III.,  Section  IV.,  is  "Of  Christian  Perfec- 
tion"; Section  V.  "Against  Antinomianism" ;  Section  VI. 
"  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,"  etc.;  Section  VII. 
"  Serious  Thoughts  on  the  infallible,  unconditional  Perse- 
verance," etc.;  Section  VIII.  "A  Plain  Account  of  Chris- 
tian Perfection,"  etc.;  and  Section  IX.  "An  Extract  on  the 
Nature  and  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism."  Section  X.  is 
headed  "  Sacramental  Services,"  etc.,  and  contains  the  of- 
fices for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  for  the  ordi- 
nation of  deacons,  elders,  and  bishops,  for  the  solemnization 
of  matrimony,  and  for  the  burial  of  the  dead.  Thus  these 
three  Disciplines,  1790,  1791,  and  1792,  completely  incor- 


472       Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


porated  sections  on  doctrine  in  their  contents,  and  this  fact 
was  acknowledged  on  their  title-pages.  But  this  is  not  the 
connection  in  which  to  pursue  further  the  implications  of 
these  facts  as  they  bear  on  the  phrase  "  present  existing  and 
established  standards  of  doctrine,"  as  it  occurs  in  the  first 
Restrictive  Rule  of  1808.  This  Disciphne  was  the  first  to  be 
divided  into  Chapters.  Chapter  I.  contains  twenty-six  Sec- 
tions; Chapter  II.  has  eight;  and  Chapter  III.  hasten.  The 
pagination  is  iv,  264,  to  which  must  be  added  4  pages  for 
Contents.    The  complete  book  makes  272  pages. 

IX. 

1797. 

The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Amer- 
ica, Revised  and  Approved  at  the  General  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore, 
in  the  State  of  Maryland,  in  November,  1792;  in  Which  Thomas  Coke 
and  Francis  Asbury  Presided :  To  Which  Are  Added,  the  Minutes  of  the 
General  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore,  October  20th,  1796.  The  Ninth 
Edition.  Philadelphia:  Printed  hy  Henry  Tuckniss,  And  Sold  by  John 
Dickins,  No.  50,  North  Second  Street,  near  Arch  Street.  1797. 

This  Discipline  does  not  conform  exactly  to  the  description 
of  its  title-page,  which  would  lead  one  to  expect  a  literal  re- 
production of  the  Disciphne  of  1792,  with  the  addition  of  the 
Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  1796.  All  the  matter 
has  been  freshly  set  up  in  another  printing  oflfice.  The  Dis- 
cipline of  1792  has  been  closely  followed  through  Chapters 
I.  and  II.,  with  the  same  Sections  and  headings  throughout, 
and  through  the  first  two  Sections  of  Chapter  III.,  with  some 
alterations.  The  Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  1796 
are  then  abruptly  introduced  at  page  59  under  the  following 
heading: 

Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
Begun  at  Baltimore,  on  the  20th  of  October,  1796,  at  which  Thomas 
Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  presided. 

These  Minutes  continue  through  page  8i,  when  the  Disci- 
pline resumes  with  Section  III.  of  Chapter  III.,  this  being, 
however,  "Of  Christian  Perfection,"  the  old  Section  of 
1792,  on  Cokesbury  College,  having  been  omitted.  Later, 


Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


Section  IX.  of  1792,  on  Baptism,  is  omitted,  so  that  Chapter 
III.  of  1797  has  two  sections  less  than  the  same  Chapter  in 
1792,  namely,  VIII.  instead  of  X.  The  Minutes  of  1796  are 
evidently  introduced  on  pages  S9-81  to  bring  them  into  im- 
mediate connection  with  the  disciplinary  matter  proper,  all 
the  succeeding  sections  being  the  Doctrinal  Tracts  and  the 
"  Sacramental  Ser\'ices."  All  of  the  doctrinal  tracts  and 
sections  are  continued  as  in  1792,  except  that  the  "  Extract 
on  the  Nature  and  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism ' '  is  omitted. 
I  have  also  a  copy  of  this  DiscipUne  in  which  the  Minutes  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1800  follow  the  Contents:  an  ac- 
count of  it  will  be  given  under  the  editions  of  1800. 
Pagination;  iv;  5-208;  Contents,  4  pages. 

X. 

1798. 

The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  In  Amer- 
ica. With  Explanatory  Notes,  By  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury. 
The  Tenth  Edition.  Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Henry  Tuckniss,  Sold  by 
John  Dickins,  No.  41,  Market-Street,  Between  Front  and  Second-streets, 
and  by  the  Methodist  Ministers  and  Preachers  throughout  the  United 
States.  1798. 

This  is  the  famous  edition  of  our  Discipline  containing  the 
"Notes"  of  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury,  which  are  appended 
to  each  Section  and  so  incorporated  with  the  body  of  the 
book.  The  DiscipHne  seems  to  reproduce  that  of  1797,  ex- 
cept that  Chapters  I.  and  II.  have  each  two  new  Sections; 
while  Chapter  III.  adds  a  Section  on  "  The  Plan  of  Educa- 
tion recommended  to  all  our  Seminaries  of  Learning,"  and 
omits  Sections  v.,  VI.,  VII.,  and  VIII.  of  the  preceding  edi- 
tion, composed  of  Doctrinal  Tracts  and  "Sacramental  Serv- 
ices," which  were  obviously  taken  out  of  this  edition  lest, 
with  the  Bishops'  **  Notes,"  the  volume  should  become  too 
bulky.  All  of  them  were  subsequently  restored.  In  this 
edition,  also,  the  "  District  Conferences"  become  "  Yearly 
Conferences,"  both  bodies  corresponding  to  the  present 
"Annual  Conferences."  The  Bishops  indicate  the  authori- 
ty for  the  "Notes"  in  an  "Advertisement  to  the  Reader," 


474      Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


dated  1797,  as  follows:  "The  last  General  Conference  de- 
sired the  Bishops  to  draw  up  Annotations  on  the  Form  of 
Discipline,  and  to  publish  them  with  the  present  edition:  — 
The  Bishops  have  accordingly  complied,  and  have  proved  or 
illustrated  everything  by  quotations  from  the  Word  of  God, 
agreeably,  also,  to  the  advice  of  the  Conference;  and  they 
sincerely  pray  that  their  labor  of  love  may  be  made  a  bless- 
ing to  many." 

The  pagination  is  iv,  187;  with  3- pages  to  add  for  Con- 
tents. 

XI. 
1800. 

The  title-page  exactly  reproduces  that  of  1797,  including 
date.  There  is  added,  after  the  table  of  Contents,  a  form  of 
16  pages  with  the  following  title-page: 

Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Be- 
gun in  Baltimore  on  the  Sixth,  and  Continued  till  the  Twentieth,  of 
Maj',  One  Thousand  Eight  Hundred.  At  Which  Thomas  Coke  and 
Francis  Asbury  Presided.  Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Henry  Tuckniss, 
For  Ezekiel  Cooper,  No.  iiS,  North  Fourth-Street,  Near  the  Methodist- 
Church.  1800. 

The  volume,  with  the  exception  noted,  is  throughout  an  exact 
reproduction  of  the  Discipline  of  1797,  being  printed  from 
the  same  type  or  plates.  On  the  back  of  the  title-page  of  the 
"  Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  "  is  the  following  ex- 
planatory "Note.  By  comparing  these  Minutes  with  the 
Discipline  you  will  discover  what  additions  or  alterations  have 
been  made  by  the  late  General  Conference — consequently 
it  is  unnecessary  to  publish  a  new  edition  of  the  Discipline, 
until  the  edition  now  on  hand  is  sold.  Those  who  have  the 
Discipline  may  procure  these  Minutes,  and  others  may  get 
them  both  together." 

XII. 

1800. 

The  title-page  exactly  reproduces  that  of  1798,  including 
date.  There  is  added,  before  the  table  of  Contents,  the  same 
Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  1800  noted  above,  with 


Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines.  475 


the  same  title-page  and  explanatory  Note .  The  volume ,  with 
this  exception,  is  throughout  an  exact  reproduction  of  the 
Discipline  of  1798,  being  printed  from  the  same  type  or 
plates.  These  two  editions  of  1800,  being  the  editions  of 
1797  and  1798  respectively,  with  the  addition  of  the  Minutes 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1800,  are  not  numbered  on 
their  title-pages,  it  will  be  noticed,  as  distinct  editions,  it 
doubtless  having  been  found  convenient  and  economical,  as 
indicated  in  the  explanatory  Note,  to  reproduce  these  without 
change.  But  they  were  intended  to  convey  to  the  Church 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1800,  and  are 
about  as  well  entitled  to  be  recognized  as  members  of  the 
series  as  the  Discipline  of  1797,  which,  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances, is  numbered  on  its  title-page  as  a  distinct 
edition. 

XIII. 

1801. 

The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  Amer- 
ica. The  Eleventh  Edition.  Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Solomon  W. 
Conrad,  No.  22,  Pewter-Platter  Alley,  for  Ezekiel  Cooper,  No.  iiS,  North 
Fourth-Street,  near  the  Methodist  Church.  1801. 

This  edition  restores  all  the  Doctrinal  Tracts  omitted  in  1798, 
and  they  are  continued  in  the  editions  of  1804  and  1805, 
which  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  of  1808  had 
in  their  hands  when  they  framed  the  Constitution  with  the 
first  Restrictive  Rule  containing  the  language  "  our  present 
existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine."  But  for 
another  line  of  evidence,  which  I  consider  above,  this  might 
be  regarded  as  decisive  of  the  meaning  of  the  Rule.  I 
know  of  no  evidence  which  enables  us  to  choose  with 
certainty  and  finality  between  the  only  two  definite  inter- 
pretations which  can  be  given  to  the  Rule.  (See  Chap- 
ter IX.) 

The  pagination  of  this  edition  is  iv,  5-204,  with  4  pages 
added  for  Contents  and  an  advertisement  of  Book  Concern 
publications. 


47^      Critical  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Disciplines. 


XIV. 

1804. 

The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The 
Twelfth  Edition.  New  York :  Printed  by  T.  Kirk,  No.  48,  Maiden-Lane, 
For  the  Methodist  Society,  and  Sold  by  E.  Cooper,  and  J.  Wilson,  at  the 
Book  Room.  1804. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  give  detailed  descriptions  of  these  later 
and  not  very  rare  editions.  The  Doctrinal  Tracts  and  Sec- 
tions, as  noticed  above,  are  continued  in  this  and  the  follow- 
ing edition,  and  also  in  that  of  1808,  in  which  the  language 
"present  existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine" 
first  appeared.  There  are  216  pages,  with  four  added  for 
Contents. 

XV. 

1805. 

The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The 
Thirteenth  Edition.  New  York,  Published  by  Ezekiel  Cooper  &  John 
Wilson,  For  the  Methodist  Connection.    W.  C.  Robinson,  Printer.  1805. 

This  edition,  though  freshly  set  up  and  printed,  appears  to 
be  an  exact  reproduction,  page  for  page,  of  the  preceding, 
and,  though  numbered  as  a  separate  edition,  has  little  or  no 
ground  for  being  so  regarded. 

XVI. 

1808. 

The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The 
Fourteenth  Edition.  New- York:  Published  by  John  Wilson  and  Daniel 
Hitt,  For  the  Methodist  Connection.    J.  C.  Totten,  Printer.  1808. 

This  Discipline  contains  the  Constitution  "  of  the  Delegated 
General  Conference,  and  thus  ends  the  primitive  series.  Its 
character  and  contents  are  sufficiently  well  known.  It  con- 
tains 211  pages,  with  an  additional  four  for  the  Contents. 

All  of  the  preceding  Disciplines  measure  5^  by  3  inches: 
from  1812,  until  a  quite  recent  date,  the  book  was  much 
smaller. 

Note. — The  editions  numbered  on  their  title-pages  continue  as  follows: 
Fifteenth,  1812;  Sixteenth,  1813;  Seventeenth,  1814;  Eighteenth,  1816; 
Nineteenth,  1817;  Twentieth,  1820;  Twenty-first,  1821;  Twenty-second, 
1824;  Twenty-third,  1825;  after  which,  so  far  as  I  know,  the  numbering  of 
the  editions  on  the  title-pages  ceases. 


APPENDIX  II. 


Fletcher's  suggestions  to  wesley  for  the  organiza- 
tion OF  METHODISM. 

IN  immediate  connection  with  Book  I.,  Chapter  II.,  "  Shall 
Wesley's  Powers  Descend  to  the  Conference  or  to  a  Desig- 
nated Successor?"  should  be  considered  the  following  letter 
sent  by  Bishop  Galloway  to  the  Christian  Advocate  (Nash- 
ville), and  published  in  the  issue  of  that  journal  for  February 
24,  1898.  From  Bishop  Galloway's  introductory  remarks  it 
may  be  gathered  that  Methodism  is  indebted  to  the  Rev. 
Charles  H.  Kelly,  Book  Steward  in  London,  for  the  recovery 
of  this  valuable  letter,  which  for  more  than  a  century  had 
been  covered  up  in  the  rubbish  of  the  Book  Room  in  City 
Road.  Dr.  James  H.  Rigg,  whois  perhaps  the  first  author- 
ity among  the  Wesleyan  Methodists  on  the  primitive  and 
present  polity  of  Methodism,  has  written  in  the  Methodist 
Recorder  two  articles  expository  of  the  significance  of  this 
letter.  Dr.  Rigg  very  pertinently  says  that ' '  the  letter  gives  a 
clew  not  before  in  our  hands,  and  lights  up  points  imperfectly 
understood."  It  certainly  does.  While  in  point  of  time  the 
letter  belongs  with  the  correspondence  between  Wesley  and 
Fletcher,  which  is  reproduced  in  the  chapter  of  this  volume 
mentioned  above,  in  point  of  its  matter  the  letter  belongs  with 
Book  III.,  Chapter  XI.,  on  "The  Christmas  Conference  and 
Wesley's  Final  Settlement  of  Episcopal  Methodism  "  ;  for,  so 
far  as  I  know,  it  is  the  earliest  suggestion  of  the  principles  on 
which  Wesley  acted  in  the  ordinations  for  America  and  the 
abridgment  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  the  only  written 
record  of  the  genesis  of  that  all-important  determination  in 
Wesley's  mind.  Dr.  Rigg,  as  further  quoted  by  Bishop  Gal- 
loway, adds,  "It is  impossible  not  to  recognize  here  the  same 

(477) 


478  Fletcher'' s  Suggestions  to  Wesley. 


idea  which  became  dominant  in  American  Methodism,  and 
which  some  of  Wesley's  closest  and  most  trusted  friends  main- 
tained, after  his  death,  that  he  desired  to  see  realized  in  its  gen- 
eral principle  in  the  arrangements  which  should  be  made  for 
English  Methodism  after  his  decease."  The  evidence  of 
Wesley's  design  that  English  Methodism  should  be  perma- 
nently organized  on  the  American  model  accumulates  (see 
above,  page  143),  but  cannot  be  summarized  here.  The  au- 
thenticity of  the  letter,  in  Fletcher's  own  handwriting,  is  un- 
questioned.   It  is  given  below: 

Thursday  Afternoon,  August  i,  1775. 
Revd  and  dear  Sir:  This  is  the  day  your  conference  with  the  Methodist 
preachers  begins.  As  I  pray'd  early  in  the  morning  that  God  would  give 
you  all  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  love  to  consult  about  the  spread  of  the 
power  of  godliness,  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Benson  in  the  letter  I  sent  you 
came  into  my  mind ;  and  I  saw  it  in  a  much  more  favorable  light  than  I  had 
done  before:  The  wish  of  my  soul  was  that  you  might  be  directed  to  see, 
and  weigh  things  in  a  proper  manner.  About  the  middle  of  the  day,  as  I 
met  with  you  in  spirit,  the  matter  occurred  to  me  again  in  so  strong  a  man- 
ner that  I  think  it  my  duty  to  put  my  thoughts  upon  paper;  and  send  them 
to  you. 

You  love  the  Church  of  England,  and  yet  you  are  not  blind  to  her 
freckles,  nor  insensible  of  her  shackles.  Your  life  is  precarious;  you  have 
lately  been  shaken  over  the  grave;  you  are  spared,  it  may  be,  to  take  yet 
some  important  step,  which  may  influence  generations  yet  unborn.  What, 
sir,  if  you  used  your  liberty  as  an  Englishman,  a  Christian,  a  divine,  and  an 
extraordinary  messenger  of  God.-"  What,  if  with  bold  modesty,  you  took  a 
farther  step  toward  the  reformation  of  the  Church  of  England?  The  ad- 
mirers of  the  Confessional,  and  the  gentlemen  who  have  petitioned  the  Par- 
liament from  the  feathers'  tavern,  cry  aloud  that  our  Church  stands  in  need 
of  being  reformed;  but  do  not  they  want  to  corrupt  her  in  some  things, 
while  they  talk  of  reforming  her  in  others?  Now,  sir,  God  has  given  you 
that  light,  that  influence,  and  that  intrepidity  which  many  of  those  gentle- 
men have  not.  You  can  reform,  as  far  as  your  influence  goes,  without  per- 
verting; and,  indeed,  you  have  done  it  already.  But  have  you  done  it  pro- 
fessedly enough?  Have  you  ever  explicitly  borne  your  testimony  against 
all  the  defects  of  our  Church?  Might  you  not  do  this  without  departing 
from  your  professed  attachment  to  her?  Nay,  might  you  not,  by  this 
means,  do  her  the  greatest  of  services?  If  the  mother  who  gave  you  suck 
were  yet  alive,  could  you  not  reverence  her,  without  reverencing  her  little 
whims  and  sinful  peculiarities  (if  she  had  any?)  If  Alexander's  good  sense 
had  not  been  clouded  by  his  pride,  would  he  have  thought  that  his  courtiers 
honored  him  when  they  awkwardly  carried  their  head  upon  one  shoulder 
as  he  did,  that  they  might  look  like  him?    I  love  the  Church  of  England,  I 


Fletcher^ s  Suggestions  to  Wesley. 


479 


hope,  as  much  as  vou  do.  But  I  do  not  love  her  so  as  to  take  her  blemishes 
for  ornaments.  You  know,  sir,  that  she  is  almost  totally  deficient  in  disci- 
pline, and  she  publicly  owns  it  herself  every  Ash  Wednesday.  What  are 
her  spiritual  courts  in  general,  but  a  catch-penny.'  As  for  her  doctrine, 
although  it  is  pure  upon  the  whole,  you  know  that  some  specks  of  Pelagian, 
Calvinian,  and  Popish  dirt  cleave  to  her  articles,  homilies,  liturgy,  and  ru- 
brics. These  specks  could  with  care  be  taken  off,  and  doing  it  in  the  circle 
of  your  influence  might,  sooner  or  later,  provoke  our  superiors  to  godly 
jealousy  and  a  complete  reformation.    In  order  to  this  it  is  proposed: 

(i.)  That  the  growing  body  of  tlie  Methodists  in  Great  Britain,  Ireland, 
and  America  be  formed  into  a  general  society — a  daughter  Church  of  our 
holy  mother. 

(2.)  That  this  society  shall  recede  from  the  Church  of  England  in  nothing 
but  in  some  palpable  defects,  about  doctrine,  discipline,  and  unevangelical 
hierarchy. 

(3.)  That  this  society  shall  be  the  Methodist  Church  of  England,  ready  to 
defend  the  as  yet  unmet/iodized  Church  against  all  the  unjust  attacks  of  the 
dissenters — willing  to  submit  to  her  in  all  things  that  are  not  unscriptural — 
approving  of  her  ordination — partaking  of  her  sacraments,  and  attending  her 
service  at  every  convenient  opportunity. 

(4.)  That  a  pamphlet  be  published  containing  the  39  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England  rectified  according  to  the  purity  of  the  gospel,  together 
with  some  needful  alterations  in  the  liturgy  and  homilies — such  as  the  ex- 
punging the  damnatory  clause  of  the  Athanasian  creed,  etc. 

(5.)  That  Messrs.  Wesley,  the  preachers,  and  the  most  substantial  Meth- 
odists in  London,  in  the  name  of  the  societies  scattered  through  the  king- 
dom, would  draw  up  a  petition  and  present  it  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury informing  his  Grace,  and  through  him  the  bench  of  the  Bishops,  of 
this  design;  proposing  the  reformed  articles  of  religion,  asking  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Church  of  England,  begging  that  tliis  step  might  not  be  consid- 
ered as  a  schism,  but  only  as  an  attempt  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  liberty  of 
Englishmen,  and  Protestants,  to  serve  God  according  to  the  purity  of  the 
gospel,  the  strictness  of  primitive  discipline,  and  the  original  design  of  the 
Church  of  England,  which  was  to  reform,  so  far  as  time  and  circumstances 
would  allow,  -vhatever  needed  reformation. 

(6.)  That  this  petition  contain  a  request  to  the  Bishops  to  ordain  the 
Methodist  preachers  which  can  pass  their  examination  according  to  what  is 
indispensably  required  in  the  canons  of  the  Church.  That  instead  of  the  or- 
dinary testimonials  the  Bishops  would  allow  of  testimonials  signed  by  Messrs. 
Wesley  and  some  more  clergymen,  who  would  make  it  their  business  to  in- 
quire into  the  morals  and  principles  of  the  candidates  for  orders.  And  that 
instead  of  a  title,  their  lordships  would  accept  of  a  bond  signed  by  twelve 
stewards  of  the  Methodist  societies,  certifying  that  the  candidate  for  holy 
orders  shall  have  a  proper  maintenance.  That  if  his  Grace,  etc.,  does  not 
condescend  to  grant  this  request,  Messrs.  Wesley  will  be  obliged  to  take  an 
irregular  (not  unevangelical)  step,  and  to  ordain  upon  a  Church  of  England- 
independent  plan  such  lay  preachers  as  appear  to  them  qualified  for  holy 
orders. 


Fletcher'' s  Suggestions  to  Wesley. 


(7.)  That  the  preachers  so  ordained  be  the  assistants  in  their  respective 
circuits.  That  the  helpers  who  are  thought  worth}',  be  ordained  deacons, 
and  that  doubtful  candidates  be  kept  upon  trial,  as  they  now  are. 

(8.)  That  the  Methodist  preachers  in  Conference  assembled  shall  have 
the  liberty  to  suspend  and  degrade  any  Methodist  preacher,  ordained  or  un- 
ordained,  who  shall  act  the  part  of  a  Balaam  or  a  Demas. 

(9.)  That  when  Messrs.  W.  are  dead,  the  power  of  Methodist  ordination 
be  lodged  in  three  or  five  of  the  most  steady  Methodist  ministers  under  the 
title  of  Moderators,  who  shall  overlook  the  flocks,  and  the  other  preachers 
as  Mr.  Wesley  does  now. 

(10.)  That  the  most  spiritual  part  of  the  common  prayer  shall  be  extract- 
ed and  published  with  the  39  rectified  articles,  and  the  minutes  of  the  Con- 
ferences (or  the  Methodist  canons)  which  (together  with  such  regulations 
as  may  be  made'at  the  time  of  this  establishment)  shall  be,  next  to  the  Bible, 
the  vade  mecum  of  the  Methodist  preachers. 

(11.)  That  the  important  office  of  confirmation  be  performed  with  the  ut- 
most solemnity  by  Mr.  Wesley  or  by  the  Moderators,  and  that  none  shall  be 
admitted  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  but  such  as  have  been  con- 
firmed or  are  ready  to  be  confirmed. 

(12.)  That  the  grand  plan  upon  which  the  Methodist  preachers  shall  go, 
shall  be  to  preach  the  doctrine  of  grace  against  the  Socinians — the  doctrine 
of  justice  against  the  Calvinists — and  the  doctrine  of  holiness  against  all  the 
world:  And  that  of  consequence  3  such  questions  as  these  be  put  to  the 
candidates  for  orders  at  the  time  of  ordination — 

I.  Wilt  thou  maintain  with  all  thy  might  the  scripture  doctrines  oi  grace, 
especially  the  doctrine  of  a  sinner's  free  justification  merely  by  a  livmg  faith 
in  the  blood  and  merits  of  Christ? 

II.  Wilt  thou  maintain  with  all  thy  might  the  scripture  doctrines  of  jus- 
tice, especially  the  doctrine  of  a  Believer's  remunerative  justification  by  the 
good  works  which  ought  to  spring  from  justifying  faith? 

III.  Wilt  thou  preach  up  Christian  perfection,  or  the  fulfilling  of  the  law 
of  Christ,  against  all  the  antinomians  of  the  age;  and  wilt  thou  ardently 
press  after  it  thyself,  never  resting  till  thou  art  perfect  in  humble  love? 

Perhaps  to  keep  the  work  in  the  Church  it  might  be  proper  to  add: 

IV.  Wilt  thou  consider  thyself  as  a  son  of  the  Church  of  England,  re- 
ceding from  her  as  little  as  possible;  never  railing  against  her  clergy,  and 
being  ready  to  submit  to  her  ordination,  if  any  of  the  bishops  will  confer  it 
upon  thee  ? 

(13.)  And  lastly,  that  Kingswood  school  be  entirely  appropriated  (i)  to  the 
reception  and  improvement  of  the  candidates  for  Methodist  orders;  (2)  to 
the  education  of  the  children  of  the  preachers;  and  (3)  to  the  keeping  of 
the  worn-out  Methodist  preachers,  whose  employment  shall  be  to  preserve 
the  spirit  of  faith  and  primitive  Christianity  in  the  place ;  by  which  means 
alone  the  curse  of  a  little  unsatictified  learning  may  be  kept  out. 

Tuesday  Evening. 
P.  S. — The  preceding  pages  contain  my  views  of  Brother  Benson's  pro- 
posal.   I  wrote  it  immediately  after  dinner  and  was  going  to  send  it  to  you, 


Fletcher'' $  Suggesttotis  to  Wesley. 


481 


thinking  that  now  is  tlie  best  time  to  deliberate  upon  this  plan.  But  when 
my  servant  was  gone  to  look  for  a  messenger  to  go  to  Leeds,  my  heart 
failed,  as  not  having  had  time  enough  to  consider  what  I  had  wrote,  or  to 
pray  over  it:  so  I  called  her  back.  This  evening  the  young  man  whom  I 
mentioned  to  you  in  my  last  being  come  to  see  me :  I  asked  him  if  he  would 
carry  a  letter  to  you;  and,  as  I  had  some  mind  of  sending  him,  barely  as 
one  that  might  labor  on  trial,  if  you  accepted  of  him,  and  had  need  of  help, 
upon  his  consenting  to  go,  I  send  you  my  scrawl,  that,  if  there  is  anything 
therein  worth  your  attention,  you  may  have  it,  while  you  can  yet  consult  with 
the  preachers.  That  the  God  of  all  grace  may  preside  over  your  every  de- 
liberation is,  dear  sir,  the  ardent  prayer  of  your  affectionate  son  and  servant 
in  the  gospel,  J.  Fletcher. 

The  tenth  suggestion  above  is  remarkable  as  embodying 
with  great  exactness  in  1775  what  Wesley  did  for  America 
in  1784;  thus  setting  at  rest  the  charge  that  the  action  of 
that  year  was  the  hasty  and  unmatured  decision  of  an  ill- 
advised  old  man  in  his  dotage.  Mr.  Fletcher's  advice  in 
this  paragraph  might  serve  as  a  concrete  description  of  the 
First  Sunday  Service  and  Form  of  Discipline  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  America. 
31 


APPENDIX  III. 


FURTHER  REMARKS  ON  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  1808. 
1.  On  the  Alleged  Reserved  Powers  of  the  Body  of  Elders. 


'HE  most  original  and  attractive  doctrine,  presented  with 


1  great  force  in  a  recent  volume,  is  that  the  sovereign 
elders  can  enact  by  majority  vote  legislation  prohibited  to 
the  General  Conference  by  the  Restrictive  Rules,  since  it 
must  be  held  that  powers  not  bestowed  on  the  General  Con- 
ference are  reserved  to  themselves  as  the  original  fountain  of 
authority.  Simple  and  beautiful  as  the  doctrine  appears  to 
be,  and  forcefully  as  it  is  argued,  it  does  not  seem  sound, 
for  several  reasons,  (i)  If  it  had  been  the  intention  of  the 
fathers  of  1808  to  set  up  or  to  retain  the  body  of  traveling 
elders  as  a  legislature  superior  to  the  General  Conference  to 
determine  by  majority  vote  measures  falling  within  the  area 
prohibited  to  the  General  Conference,  then  the  Constitution, 
instead  of  the  cumbersome  machinery  provided  for  the  alter- 
ation of  a  Restrictive  Rule,  would  have  simply  said,  ''AH 
powers  reserved  in  the  above  Restrictions  from  the  General 
Conference  shall  be  exercised  by  the  body  of  traveling  elders 
in  such  manner  as  from  time  to  time  they  may  agree  upon." 
(2)  The  enactment  for  the  alteration  of  the  Restrictive  Rules 
ordains  specifically  the  manner  in  which  the  residual  sov- 
ereignty of  the  traveling  elders  shall  be  exercised,  namely, 
through  the  medium  of  the  General  Conference  by  an  ex- 
tension of  its  legislative  powers;  and  by  this  specific  provi- 
sion excludes  all  others,  according  to  the  legal  maxim,  in- 
clusio  unmsy  exclusio  alterius.  (3)  The  fact  that  in  all  the 
crises  which  have  arisen  in  nearly  a  hundred  years  of  gov- 
ernment under  the  Constitution  in  both  Methodisms,  such  as 
those  of  1844  and  the  recent  adoption  of  the  new  Constitution 
by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  when  the  wisest  ecclesi- 


(482) 


Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  jSo8.  483 


astical  statesmen  of  Methodism  have  heen  compelled  to  view 
the  question  at  issue  in  every  light,  no  man  has  been  wise 
enough  to  hit  upon  the  simple  substitute  of  a  majority  vote  of 
the  traveling  elders  for  the  two-thirds  majority  in  the  General 
Conference  and  the  three-fourths  majority  of  the  traveling 
elders,  would  seem  to  be  conclusive  proof  that  the  alleged 
reserved  power  does  not  exist.  (4)  The  argument  proves 
too  much,  and  appears  to  reduce  to  an  absurdity;  for,  if 
an  effort  to  alter  a  Restrictive  Rule  should  fail  of  the  three- 
fourths  majority,  then  the  traveling  elders  could  turn  about, 
in  the  exercise  of  their  reserved  powers,  and  accomplish  the 
object  aimed  at  as  a  piece  of  independent  legislation  on  their 
part,  by  a  simple  majority  vote.  (5)  As  they  are  the  sov- 
ereign makers  of  the  Constitution,  which  was  ordained  by  a 
vote  of  the  majority,  this  majority  action  of  theirs  might  be 
extended  to  bestowing  additional  powers  on  the  General 
Conference,  as  in  the  first  instance,  or  to  the  entire  abolition 
of  the  existing  Constitution  by  the  substitution  of  a  new  one ; 
in  either  case  contrary  to  the  express  provisions  of  that  in- 
strument. In  a  word,  the  "reserved  powers"  unspecified 
in  the  Constitution,  are  of  such  a  nature,  according  to  this 
view,  as  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  elders  to  nullify  the  *'  limita- 
tions and  restrictions"  under  which  the  General  Conference 
is  granted  '■'■full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our 
Church."  Both  law  and  history,  as  well  as  the  plain  provi- 
sions of  the  Constitution  itself,  give  their  verdict  against  this 
contention. 

II.  On  the  Judicial  Powers  of  the  General  Conference. 

Methodist  government  and  law  are  unique,  having  a  genius 
and  history  all  their  own.  The  contention  of  the  General 
Conference  itself,  of  McKendree,  McTyeire,  and  others, 
that  there  was  originally  no  tribunal  for  constitutional  ques- 
tions— save  as  the  voice  of  the  traveling  elders  in  the  Annual 
Conferences  might  make  itself  heard — needs  to  be  histor- 
ically understood.  It  has  no  reference  to  such  matters  as 
(i)  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  (2)  the  appeal  of  a  traveling 


484      Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1808. 


preacher,  or  (3)  the  determination  of  the  right  of  a  delegate 
elect  to  sit  in  the  General  Conference — questions  expressly 
or  by  common  consent  committed  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
General  Conference  for  judicial  determination;  but  to  those 
questions  in  which  the  General  Conference  as  a  delegated 
body  with  limited  powers  should,  as  a  legislature,  come  into 
collision  with  its  principal  or  the  Bishops,  through  a  real  or 
supposed  overstepping  of  its  legislative  province,  and  for  the 
decision  of  which  it  would  of  necessity  be  a  partial  and, 
therefore,  an  unfit  tribunal.  The  danger  of  constituting  a 
party  in  interest  and  that  party  an  agent  with  derived  and 
defined  powers  which  it  might  be  tempted  to  overstep,  a  su- 
preme court,  is  too  obvious  to  be  argued.  Consequently  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  embodied  in  its 
constitutional  law  an  independent  tribunal  of  this  nature, 
whose  necessity  had  been  recognized  with  great  unanimity 
from  1820  to  1870.  Bishop  McKendree's  so-called  veto 
was  but  an  appeal  from  the  creature  and  agent,  the  General 
Conference,  to  that  sovereign,  the  body  of  traveling  elders. 
Episcopacy  and  General  Conference  are  alike  agents  hold- 
ing a  charter  from  those  elders;  consequently  in  an  issue 
between  these  two  chartered  authorities,  on  a  question  of  the 
constitutionality  of  legislation,  the  appeal  lies  to  the  supreme 
author  of  the  charters,  whose  agents  the  chartered  authori- 
ties are.  The  course  of  the  history  may  be  summarized  in 
the  following  statements. 

1 .  From  the  time  that  the  government  of  the  Church  passed 
into  the  hands  of  the  original  General  Conference  in  1792  to 
the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  1808,  both  the  episcopal 
office  and  the  episcopal  officers,  as  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury 
recognized,  were  completely  at  the  mercy  of  the  General 
Conference,  which  could  at  will  abolish  the  office  or  depose 
the  officers. 

2.  Before  1808  no  question  as  to  the  constitutionality  of 
the  acts  of  an  unlimited  General  Conference  could  arise, 
and  particularly  no  collision  between  the  constitutional  au- 
thority of  the  Bishops  and  the  exercise  of  its  constitutional 


Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1808.  485 


rights  by  the  General  Conference.  No  Constitution  existed. 
No  judicial  power  to  decide  the  constitutionality  of  the  acts  of 
a  sovereign  and  unlimited  legislature,  which  had  no  responsi- 
bility to  a  higher  source,  is  conceivable.  If,  in  the  absence 
of  a  Constitution,  no  such  power  existed,  no  such  power  was 
transmitted  to  its  successor. 

3.  To  men  learned  in  the  civil  law  it  may  appear  clear  and 
certain  that,  in  conveying  to  the  Delegated  General  Confer- 
ence the  power  "  to  make  rules  and  regulations,"  the  fathers 
of  1808  had  in  mind  and  intended  to  bestow  expressly  the 
power  "to  make  a  rule  "  by  final  judicial  decision,  according 
to  the  analogies  and  precedents  of  civil  government.  To  one 
who  keeps  his  mind  in  touch  with  the  very  simple  concrete 
facts,  antecedent  and  contemporary,  of  Methodist  history 
and  government,  it  appears  probable  that  this  contingency 
was  not  contemplated,  and  that  the  legislative  powers  were 
alone  in  view  when  "full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regula- 
tions" were  granted.  While  the  general  principle  is  not  to 
be  denied  that  final  judicial  decision — e.  g.,  in  the  trial  of  a 
Bishop  or  of  the  appeal  of  a  traveHng  preacher — does  of  it- 
self make  a  rule,  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying 
that  when  the  constitutionaHty  of  legislation  pending  in  the 
General  Conference  is  challenged,  or  perhaps  doubted  by 
the  body,  the  power  to  decide  the  question  of  constitutional- 
ity was  conveyed,  or  intended  to  be  conveyed,  to  the  General 
Conference  in  the  general  grant  of  power  "to  make  rules 
and  regulations." 

4.  But,  apart  from  the  probabilities  of  the  case,  the  sub- 
sequent history  is  in  clear  demonstration  that  the  fathers  of 
1808  did  not  anticipate  any  misunderstanding  of  the  brief, 
simple,  clear  Third  Restrictive  Rule  which  I  have  elsewhere 
called  the  constitutional ' ' charter' '  of  the  episcopacy.  When, 
in  1820,  collision  between  the  Bishops  and  the  General  Con- 
ference did  arise,  as  to  the  interpretation  and  limits  of  this 
charter,  the  General  Conference  did  not  attempt  the  exer- 
cise of  any  "supreme  judicial  powers"  for  the  settlement  of 
the  constitutional  issue.    They  did  not  attempt  to  construe 


486      Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1808. 


the  Constitution  by  resolution  of  the  majority,  originating 
with  a  Judiciary  Committee  or  otherwise;  for  the  simple 
reason  that,  as  far  as  appears  from  the  record,  the  members 
of  the  General  Conference  had  no  suspicion  that  they  were 
in  possession  of  such  powers  of  defining  by  majority  vote  the 
limits  of  the  legislative  functions  granted  them  in  the  Con- 
stitution imposed  by  the  body  of  traveling  elders. 

5.  It  is  conceivable,  especially  to  those  who  look  at  the 
events  from  the  standpoint  of  civil  law,  that  the  General 
Conference  of  1820  might  have  stood  by  the  statute  which 
had  been  enacted,  and  adjourned  with  the  provision  for  the 
election  of  presiding  elders  in  the  Discipline ;  that  Bishop 
McKendree,  and  Bishop  Soule,  if  the  latter  had  accepted 
his  election,  might  have  refused  to  execute  the  law  on  the 
grounds  of  its  unconstitutionality;  that  both  of  the  Bishops 
might  have  been  arrested  and  brought  to  trial  for  contumacy 
before  the  General  Conference  of  1824;  that  both  might 
have  been  found  guilty ;  and  that  the  General  Conference  of 
1824  might  thus  have  "  made  a  rule  "  by  supreme  and  final 
judicial  decision  which  would  have  bound  the  Bishops  and 
the  Church,  or  from  which,  at  least,  there  was  provided  no 
relief;  but  in  such  a  case  the  trial  would  have  been  little 
short  of  a  farce,  since  the  General  Conference  as  a  court 
would  of  course  be  committed  irrevocably  to  the  constitu- 
tionality of  its  acts  as  a  legislature,  and  would  have  deposed 
or  expelled  Bishops  who  denied  the  constitutionality  of  the 
law  from  the  beginning. 

6.  But  this  is  all  purely  theoretical,  arising  out  of  civil 
analogies  whose  application  is  annulled  by  the  actual  course 
of  events.  There  were  such  evident  historical  and  constitu- 
tional grounds  for  the  contention  of  Bishop  McKendree,  that 
it  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  anybody  in  the  General 
Conferences  of  1820  and  1824  that  he  had  laid  himself  open 
to  trial  for  contumacy  or  maladministration.  To  civilians 
such  a  course  might  have  seemed  natural;  to  these  church- 
men it  was  preposterous.  Bishop  McKendree  carried  the 
decision  of  the  issue  between  him  and  the  General  Confer- 


Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1808.  487 


ence  to  the  body  of  traveling  elders  assembled  in  their  sev- 
eral Annual  Conferences,  justifying  his  course  in  part  by  a 
precedent  in  the  case  of  the  formation  of  the  Genesee  Con- 
ference. Seven  of  the  twelve  Conferences  pronounced  the 
proposed  rule  unconstitutional.  The  General  Conference 
of  1824  passed  a  resolution  declaring  that  the  action  of  1820 
was  "  not  of  authority,"  and  this  expressly  on  the  ground 
that  Bishop  McKendree's  appeal  had  enabled  a  majority  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  to  pronounce  the  action  unconstitu- 
tional. Whether  this  action  of  the  General  Conference  was 
taken  in  the  exercise  of  its  "  supreme  judicial,"  or  its  ordi- 
nary legislative,  powers,  I  am  not  now  concerned  to  debate. 
In  either  case,  even  those  whose  views  differ  from  mine  must 
allow  it  *'made  a  rule"  which  was  accepted  as  final  by  all 
parties  in  interest.  It  established,  as  far  as  precedent  could  do 
so,  a  method  of  initiating  constitutional  construction,  analo- 
gous rather  to  executive  veto  on  the  acts  of  a  legislature  at  the 
time  of  the  passage  of  a  bill.  It  is  altogether  too  late  in  the 
day  to  set  up  a  contention  based  on  civil  analogies,  where  leg- 
islatures and  courts  are  different  bodies  of  men,  that  these 
traveling  elders  had  no  right  to  pass  on  Bishop  McKen- 
dree's appeal,  and  that  the  Bishop  should  have  been  tried 
for  contumacy.  The  Bishop  was  not  tried;  so  far  as  ap- 
pears, nobody  dreamed  of  trying  him;  the  elders  did  pass 
on  his  appeal;  and  their  decision  was  accepted  as  final  by 
the  General  Conference,  in  the  passage  of  a  formal  resolu- 
tion; by  the  Bishops  who  did  not  act  with  Bishop  McKen- 
dree;  and  by  the  whole  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America.  There  is  nothing  more  to  be  said.  History  and 
ecclesiastical  law  are  both  satisfied. 

7.  But  this  is  not  the  whole  confession  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America 
that  it  is  not  possessed  of  supreme  judicial  powers  to  decide 
upon  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  acts.  The  General 
Conference  of  1820  passed  another  resolution  whose  pre- 
amble recites  that  there  docs  not  appear  to  be  any  proper 
tribunal  to  judge  of  and  determine  such  a  [^constitutional^ 


488      Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1808. 


question,"'  arising  in  the  legislature  itself  at  the  time  of  the 
making  of  law  and  not  simply  in  some  later  judicial  process. 
Not  arrogating  such  a  power  to  itself,  and  face  to  face  with 
apparently  insuperable  difficulties,  the  General  Conference 
could  only  cast  about  for  means  to  create  such  a  constitu- 
tional tribunal.  In  the  General  Conference  of  1824,  Lov- 
ick  Pierce  and  William  Winans  introduced  a  constitutional 
amendment  creating  a  court  for  the  decision  of  constitution- 
al questions  which  was  sent  to  the  Annual  Conferences  by  a 
vote  of  64  to  58.  This  measure  was  finally  consummated 
only  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South;  but,  I  submit,  in  view  of  the  history,  the  Southern 
Church  proceeded  normally  on  the  lines  which  had  been 
marked  out  by  the  experiences  of  the  government  under  the 
Constitution.  Against  the  history  it  is  futile  at  this  late  date 
to  set  up  on  abstract  grounds  a  contention  tliat  the  General 
Conference  was  all  the  time  in  full  possession  of  powers 
of  constitutional  construction  by  majority  vote  which  it  not 
only  did  not  exercise,  but  of  whose  existence  it  was  sublimely 
unconscious.  I  am  hardly  prepared  to  suppose  the  fathers 
of  our  Church  capable  of  such  folly. 

8.  A  history  of  the  organic  or  governmental  committees  of 
the  General  Conference,  to  which  I  have  made  but  slight  con- 
tribution in  the  pages  of  this  History,  is  still  a  desideratum,  that 
their  powers  may  be  historically  understood  and  defined.  The 
Judiciary  Committee,  which  has  never  had  any  existence  in 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  and  which  now  exercises  such  important  functions  in 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
was  first  constituted  in  the  General  Conference  of  1836, 
though  it  did  not  maintain  itself  permanently  from  that  time. 
Its  functions  were  defined  in  the  motion  of  Nathan  Bangs 
which  called  it  into  existence,  "  to  whom  may  be  referred 
all  appeals  or  complaints  of  any  character  against  the  acts 
and  doings  of  an  Annual  Conference,"  and  "to  report 
whether,  in  their  opinion,  the  complainants  are  legally  en- 
titled to  be  heard."    It  becomes  at  once  evident  how  the 


Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitutiofi  of  1808.  489 


functions  of  this  committee  are  discharged  in  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  by 
the  Committees  on  Appeals  and  on  Itinerancy;  and  equally 
evident  how  different  are  the  functions  of  the  present  Judi- 
ciary Committee  in  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  which  reports  decisions  on  ques- 
tions of  law,  which,  on  adoption  by  the  Conference,  become 
final.  By  resolution,  reported  by  this  committee  and  adopt- 
ed by  the  Conference,  I  believe,  authoritative  interpretations 
of  law  are  imposed  on  the  whole  Church — a  proceeding 
which,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  without  civil  or  ecclesiastical  par- 
allel or  precedent.  For  a  delegated  body,  exercising  limited 
powers  under  a  Constitution,  to  assume  such  a  function,  is  ob- 
viously preposterous ;  works  the  subversion  of  the  Constitu- 
tion itself;  and,  in  the  light  of  both  history  and  abstract  prin- 
ciple, reduces  the  imposition  of  constitutional  limitations  upon 
a  legislative  body  endowed  with  such  judicial  powers  to  an 
absurdity. 

III.  Are  the  Doctrinal  Standards  Unchangeable? 
(See  page  404.) 

The  real  question  is.  Did  the  General  Conference  of  1828, 
when  it  inserted  the  words  "excepting  the  first  article"  in 
the  proviso,  intend  the  abolition  of  the  universally  satisfac- 
tory provision  for  amendment  then  existing,  against  which 
the  contemporary  records  show  no  complaint;  and  thus  to 
leave  the  Church  without  any  express  provision  b}'^  which  the 
doctrines  might  be  reached  ?  or.  Was  it  taken  for  granted  by 
the  body,  as  a  matter  universally  understood,  that,  since  the 
movement  in  the  General  Conference  and  in  the  Church  was 
not  for  the  tightening  but  for  the  loosening  of  the  provision 
for  amendment  of  the  Restrictive  Rules,  the  existing  method 
of  amendment  would  remain  untouched  so  far  as  the  first 
article  was  concerned?  That  the  first  question  must  be  an- 
swered in  the  negative  and  the  last  in  the  affirmative  seems 
to  me  clear  for  the  following  additional  reasons: 

I.  It  is  un-Protestant  and  un-Methodistic  to  suppose  that 
the  General  Conference  contemplated  the  imposition  of  un- 


490      Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1808. 


revisable  doctrinal  articles  in  perpetuity  upon  the  Church. 
We  are  consequently  obliged,  if  it  can  be  reasonably  done, 
to  set  aside  any  interpretation  of  their  action  which  looks  in 
this  direction. 

2.  The  contemporary  discussions  indicate  beyond  doubt 
that  the  intention  of  the  General  Conference  and  of  the 
Church  was  to  give  additional  liberty  and  not  to  increase 
the  existing  bondage.  Since  there  is  no  express  method  of 
amending  the  First  Restrictive  Rule  prescribed  in  the  present 
language  of  the  Discipline,  any  method  of  revision  is  reached 
by  interpretation  of  the  action  and  the  history,  which  dis- 
tinctly favor  the  conclusion  stated  in  this  History. 

3.  For  the  language  "excepting  the  first  article"  was  not 
contained  in  the  original  resolution  offered  by  Wilbur  Fisk. 
The  liberal  party,  of  which  he  was  the  leader  in  this  move- 
ment, evidently  contemplated  the  application  of  the  changed 
method  of  revision  to  all  the  Restrictive  Rules.  It  was  an 
obvious  concession  to  the  careful  and  conservative  element 
in  the  General  Conference  that  the  exception  concerning 
the  first  article  was  inserted  as  an  amendment.  To  any  one 
acquainted  with  the  methods  in  which  business  was  and  is 
usually  done  in  the  General  Conference,  it  must  appear  in- 
credible that  the  insertion  of  this  exception,  as  an  amend- 
ment to  an  existing  paper,  either  abolished,  or  was  intended 
to  abolish,  the  existing  method  for  altering  the  First  Restrict- 
ive Rule. 

4.  A  question  like  this  is  not  to  be  settled  by  the  parlia- 
mentary distinction  between  a  substitute  and  an  amendment, 
though  the  General  Conference  declared  its  own  purpose  to 
be  *'  to  alter  and  amend."  The  fathers  were  not  overcare- 
ful  of  such  nice  distinctions,  but  the  entire  disappearance  of 
the  old  language  of  the  Discipline,  and  the  substitution  of 
the  new  action,  is  susceptible  of  an  easy  explanation.  The 
original  measure  introduced  into  the  General  Conference  of 
1828  was  intended  to  apply  to  all  the  Restrictive  Rules,  and  so 
was  properly  drawn  as  a  substitute  to  supplant  the  existing 
proviso.    When  the  exception  was  introduced,  the  general 


Further  Remarks  on  the  Constitution  of  1 80S.  491 


form  of  the  paper  was  not  changed,  and  so  the  editor  of  the 
Discipline  was  led  to  make  the  substitution  as  originally  con- 
templated, though  careful  analysis  of  the  action  might  well 
have  satisfied  him  that  this  was  no  longer  a  complete  record 
of  the  action  of  the  Conference.  Merely  excepting  the  first 
article  from  the  operation  of  the  new  law  did  not  remove  it 
from  the  control  of  the  old  law,  bat  clearly,  and  no  doubt  de- 
signedly, left  it  under  stick  control.  As  evidence,  the  Jour- 
nal of  the  General  Conference  takes  precedence  of  the  Dis- 
cipline. 

$.  I  therefore  conclude  that  the  General  Conference  did 
not  have  in  "  legal  contemplation,"  when  it  sent  the  measure 
to  the  Annual  Conferences,  the  "abrogation"  of  the  "orig- 
inal proviso"  by  "the  adoption  of  a  substitute  for  it"  ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  that  it  expressly  excepted  the  First  Restrictive 
Rule  from  the  control  of  the  "substitute,"  obviously  intend- 
ing to  leave  it  under  the  protection  of  the  original  proviso. 
The  accidental  form  of  the  measure,  arising  from  the  addi- 
tion of  the  exception  as  an  amendment  to  a  paper  that  could 
have  been  properly  substituted  for  the  proviso  in  the  Disci- 
pline, had  it  passed  in  its  original  form,  led  to  the  entire  omis- 
sion of  the  proviso  of  1808,  and  the  consequent  confusion 
which  has  prevailed  ever  since. 

6.  At  this  point  come  into  play  the  entire  statement  of 
facts,  and  the  arguments  based  thereon,  as  contained  in  the 
text  of  this  History.  I  see  nothing  to  subtract  from  that 
statement  and  argument.  On  the  contrary,  the  more  minute 
examination  of  the  original  legislation,  which  the  contention 
of  others  has  led  me  to  make,  but  confirms  the  conviction  of 
the  historical  and  legal  truth  of  the  original  position. 


APPENDIX  IV. 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  VALIDITY  OF  THE  PLAN  OF  SEPARATION. 

LET  US  first  notice  a  doctrine  clearly  enunciated  by  Dr. 
W.  F.  Warren,  in  his  "  Constitutional  Law  Questions 
now  Pending  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church"  (1894). 
Believing  as  he  does  that  the  Goucher  substitute,  defining 
the  Constitution  of  the  General  Conference,  was  incorrect 
and  unwise,  he  finds  consolation  in  the  fact  that  the  afore- 
said definition  is  not  final;  and 

If  the  Conference  of  '96  shall  consider  the  decision  of  the  preceding  one 
to  have  been  erroneous,  it  will  have  unquestioned  authority  to  reverse  it 
It  is  to  be  hoped,  however,  [continues  our  author]  that  no  great  number 
of  General  Conferences  will  devote  themselves  to  the  voting  up  and  voting 
down  of  the  definitions  of  their  own  organic  law  before  studying  that  law 
itself  in  some  comprehensive  and  statesmanlike  fashion. 

At  first  blush  it  seems  to  work  confusion  worse  confounded 
to  allow  that  a  succeeding  coordinate  General  Conference 
can  thus  review  and  reverse  the  highest  judicial  act  of  a 
predecessor.  Yet  the  principle,  with  one  exception  pres- 
ently to  be  noticed,  must  be  admitted.  It  applies  equally  to 
the  revision  of  judicial  decisions  and  to  the  revision  of  statutes 
enacted  by  the  General  Conference ;  equally  to  the  acts  of 
the  supreme  court  and  to  the  laws  of  the  supreme  legislature; 
and  is  as  reasonable  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  Dr. 
Warren  pushes  his  doctrine  one  step  further  and  reaches  the 
startUng  conclusion  that  a  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  can  enact  a  confessedly  unconstitu- 
tional law  that  shall  not  be  void,  but  shall  operate,  by  force  of 
its  provisions,  as  an  amendment  to  the  existing  Constitution. 
This  extreme  view  is  supported  by  reference  to  a  parallelism 
between  the  British  Parliament  and  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  since  both  differ  from 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  in  having  no  independent 
(492) 


Constitutional  Validity  of  the  Plan  of  Separation.  493 


supreme  court  or  other  organized  tribunal  to  pass  upon  the 
constitutionality  of  their  enactments.  To  this  effect  Dr. 
Warren  quotes  Judge  Thomas  M.  Cooley: 

An  unconstitutional  enactment  is  sometimes  void,  and  sometimes  not, 
and  this  will  depend  upon  whether,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  govern- 
ment, any  tribunal  or  officer  is  empowered  to  judge  of  violations  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  to  keep  the  legislature  within  the  limits  of  a  delegated  author- 
ity by  annulling  whatever  acts  exceed  it  According  to  the  theory  of  Brit- 
ish constitutional  law  the  Parliament  possesses  and  wields  supreme  power; 
and  if,  therefore,  its  enactments  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  they  are 
nevertheless  valid,  and  must  operate  as  modifications  or  amendments  of  it. 
But  where,  as  in  America,  the  legislature  acts  under  a  delegated  authority 
limited  by  the  Constitution  itself,  and  the  judiciary  is  empowered  to  declare 
what  the  law  is,  an  unconstitutional  enactment  must  fall  when  it  is  sub- 
jected to  the  ordeal  of  the  courts. 

I  may  add  this  further  quotation  from  such  an  acknowl- 
edged authority  as  Judge  Cooley: 

The  remedy  for  unconstitutional  enactments  in  England  must  therefore 
be  political  or  revolutionary,  while  in  America  H  may  be  found  in  the  ordi- 
nary process  of  the  courts.* 

This  is  precisely  the  difference  between  the  government 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  that  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South;  and  in  substantial  agreement 
with  these  positions  of  Judge  Cooley  and  Dr.  Warren,  I  have 
said  above  (pp.  376,  377)  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church : 

Should  the  General  Conference  at  any  time,  however  innocently,  exceed 
its  constitutional  powers,  the  Annual  Conferences  have  no  protection  and 
no  redress ;  the  Bishops  can  only  submit  or  resign  ;  the  Church  itself,  should 
the  guaranteed  rights  of  the  membership  be  invaded,  has  no  remedy  save 
that  of  revolution.    There  is  no  power  but  of  the  General  Conference. 

There  are,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  but  two  sound  and  effi- 
cient limitations  upon  this  universal  legislative  and  judicial 
supremacy  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  one  of  which  Dr.  Warren  admits;  the 
other  he  fails  to  see. 

I.  The  parallel  between  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  British  Parliament  fails 
at  one  vital  point.    The  Parliament  is  a  sovereignty;  the 


*"  Principles  of  Constitutional  Law,"  p.  24. 


494   Constitutional  Validity  of  the  Plan  of  Separation. 


General  Conference  is  not.*  The  attributes  of  sover- 
eignty do  not  attach  to  any  organization,  association,  cor- 
poration, or  company,  all  of  which  are  subject  to  the  laws  of 
the  land  and  to  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  courts.  Let  us 
illustrate.  The  Board  of  Missions  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  might  be  encumbered  with  a  debt.  The  Gen- 
eral Conference,  in  violation  of  the  Sixth  Restrictive  Rule, 
might  order  that  the  produce  of  the  book  concern  should  be 
applied  for  a  quadrennium  to  the  extinction  of  the  mission- 
ary debt.  This  action  would  be  clearly  unconstitutional.  Now 
within  the  Church  itself  there  would  be  no  means  of  resist- 
ance to  this  act  of  the  General  Conference  short  of  revolu- 
tion and  a  disorderly  rejection  of  its  supremacy.  An  un- 
constitutional law  would  be  operative,  and,  if  not  set  aside 
by  outright  disobedience  to  the  mandate  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, it  would  issue  in  a  practical  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution, since  the  Sixth  Restrictive  Rule  would  be  set  aside. 
But  without  the  Church  there  would  be  another  means  of  re- 
dress. The  humblest  superannuate  in  the  Church,  the  most 
obscure  widow  of  a  traveling  preacher,  could  institute  suit 
before  the  proper  civil  court  and  have  the  unconstitutional 
act  of  the  General  Conference  defrauding  the  Conference 
claimants  of  their  rights  set  aside. 

Religious  societies  stand  before  the  state  courts  precisely 
as  any  other  benevolent  or  voluntary  association.  Their 
specific  religious  character  is  not  recognized ;  they  are  re- 
garded simply  as  incorporated  associations  of  individuals. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  through  Justice 
Miller,  decided  as  follows: 

Religious  organizations  come  before  us  in  the  same  attitude  as  other 
voluntary  associations  for  benevolent  or  charitable  purposes,  and  their 
rights  of  property  or  of  contract  are  equally  under  the  protection  of  the 
law,  and  the  actions  of  its  members  under  its  restraints.    (13  Wallace,  714.) 

To  the  civil  law  the  Church  bears  a  character  no  more 
sacred  than  does  a  copartnership  for  commerce.     So  long 

*  Ecclesiastically  the  supreme  governing  body  of  any  Church  may  be 
spoken  of  as  a  sovereignty,  as  in  the  next  Appendix;  but,  from  the  ctvH 
standpoint,  this  usage  has  no  warrant. 


Constitutional  Validity  of  the  Plan  of  Separation.  495 


as  the  Church  leaves  civil  rights  untouched,  the  State  has  no 
knowledge  of  its  existence.  "In  the  eye  of  the  State  the 
Church  wears  no  character  which  permits  it  to  do  injustice, 
or  that  requires  its  decrees  to  stand  unquestioned."  Eccle- 
siastical findings  have  been  so  often  reviewed  in  both  English 
and  American  courts  that  the  general  principles  therein  in- 
volved can  be  easily  shown.  Where  an  ecclesiastical  case 
is  brought  before  the  civil  courts,  two  allegations  must  be 
laid — first,  that  an  injury  has  been  done  to  civil  rights ;  second, 
that  such  injury  has  resulted  from  ecclesiastical  courts' 
transcending  those  limits  fixed  by  mutual  assent  of  the  par- 
ties involved.  These  general  principles  are  laid  down  in 
Austin  V.  Searing,  16  N.  Y.,  112. 

A  case  in  point  is  Smith  v.  Nelson,  18  Vermont,  511.  A 
minister  who  had  been  deposed  from  his  office,  and  shut 
out  from  his  pulpit,  brought  suit  to  recover  his  standing,  and 
to  have  the  ecclesiastical  judgment  set  aside,  upon  the  ground 
that  his  salary  was  in  part  paid  out  of  a  funded  legacy,  from 
which  income  he  was  debarred  by  acts  of  the  Church  court 
in  contravention  of  its  own  written  laws.  And  he  was  re- 
stored by  the  civil  court,  which  decided  that  his  civil  rights 
had  been  unwarrantably  trampled  upon. 

Many  of  our  ablest  American  jurists  go  even  further  than 
this,  and  declare  that  the  office  of  the  ministry  itself,  while 
upon  the  one  side  a  purely  spiritual  office,  is,  viewed  from 
its  other  side,  a  profession  with  honors,  exemptions,  and 
emoluments,  all  of  which  are  civil  rights  capable  of  defense 
in  civil  courts  from  unwarrantable  injury. 

Practically  all  our  State  and  Federal  courts  agree  that 
Church  tribunals  or  "  courts  "  are  mere  forms  of  arbitration. 
"The  organic  law  of  the  Church,"  says  Judge  Robertson, 
"is  a  fundamental  contract,  necessarily  inviolable,  for  the 
protection  of  every  member."  (9  Am.  Law  Reg.,  N.  S., 
211.)  It  can  be  safely  stated  that  the  state  courts  will  not 
suffer  Church  tribunals  arbitrarily  to  interpret  the  question 
of  their  own  powers  to  the  detriment  of  a  man's  good  name, 
or  professional  standing,  or  the  abuse  of  trust  funds. 


49^   Const  it  lit  iotial  Validity  of  the  Plan  of  Separation. 


A  Church  organized  under  a  written  form  of  government 
enters  into  a  contract,  definite  and  stipulated,  which  defines 
at  once  the  obligations  and  liberties  of  ministers  and  mem- 
bers. The  decrees  of  such  a  Church  which  are  without  war- 
rant in  the  constitutional  definition  of  its  powers,  the  civil 
courts  have  reversed  in  nearly  every  state  in  the  Union. 
(See  i8  Ver.,  511;  2  Bush,  Ky.,  332;  16  N.  Y.,  112;  and 
41  Penn.,  9.) 

Indeed,  nothing  could  be  more  just  and  nothing  else  long 
possible  in  a  free  country.  There  cannot  be  two  tribunals 
with  absolute  power  over  civil  rights  of  the  citizen.  All  the 
State  requires  of  the  Church  is  not  to  usurp  undelegated 
power  to  the  detriment  of  the  citizen.  A  Church  whose  de- 
cisions are  final  upon  all  questions  of  Church  property  and 
upon  the  civil  rights  of  its  members  and  ministers  is,  as 
Lord  Kames  has  said,  "The  very  instrument  by  which, 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  one-half  the  lands  of  Europe  and 
one-fourth  of  its  male  population  were  rendered  neither 
amenable  to  the  civil  law  nor  possessed  of  its  protection."* 

To  secure  additional  authority  on  the  general  points  in- 
volved, I  submitted  Dr.  Warren's  book  to  an  eminent  Meth- 
odist lawyer,  together  with  a  verbal  statement  of  my  own 
views,  and  requested  a  written  opinion  on  the  legal  points 
involved,  which  was  given  in  part  as  follows: 

I.  All  legislation  is  subject  to  modification  or  repeal,  and  all  judicial  de- 
liverances are  subject  to  be  overruled  or  reversed.  In  these  respects,  the 
General  Conference  has,  as  to  those  under  its  jurisdiction,  the  ordinary 
powers  of  a  legislature  and  of  an  appellate  or  supreme  court  combined,  in 
the  exercise  of  its  powers  and  in  the  judicial  construction  of  its  own  official 
action.  In  case  of  a  usurpation  of  power,  or  of  violation  of  official  duty,  there 
jmight  be  a  successful  resort  to  the  civil  courts. 

,  2.  The  British  constitutional  principle  does  not  apply  to  an  unconstitu- 
tional enactment  of  a  General  Conference,  because  it  does  not,  (like  the 
Parliament,)  wield  supreme  power,  but  is  expressly  limited  both  in  leg- 
islative and  judicial  power,  and  acts  under  a  delegated  authority  limited  by 
its  Constitution,  or  charter,  in  its  amended  and  developed  shape  at  the  time  of 
such  enactment,  and  duly  ratified  when  such  amendments  require  ratifica- 
tion.   The  right  of  revising  or  setting  aside  interpretations  of  organic  law 


*On  these  points  I  acknowledge  indebtedness  to  a  pamphlet  placed  in  my  hands  by  the  au- 
thor, the  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Crane,  of  Colorado  Springes,  Col. 


Constitutional  Validity  of  the  Plan  of  Separation .  497 


is  also  vested  in  the  General  Conference  alone;  and  until  such  setting  aside, 
the  Interpretation  is  binding,  subject  only  in  case  of  wrongs  to  person  or 
property  to  the  intervention  of  the  civil  courts.  Under  this  view  the/ro- 
viso  made  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
appears  to  be  of  singular  constitutional  efficacy,  and  of  the  greatest  available 
importance,  if  not  of  essential  necessity  for  guarding  against  hasty  and  un- 
advised legislation  or  of  judicial  construction. 

C  Practically  the  action  of  a  General  Conference  both  in  its  legislative 
and  judicial  capacity,  and  indirectly  in  its  executive  capacity,  is  final,  ex- 
cept in  such  cases  as  ratification  is  provided  for  and  required.  And  even  in 
the  exercise  of  its  prerogative  concerning  ordinary  or  routine  matters,  and 
not  involving  questions  of  organic  law,  there  is  practically  no  remedy  against 
wrong,  injudicious,  or  even  hasty  action,  after  the  close  of  the  Conference 
session,  except  by  a  change  of  position  or  policy  at  a  subsequent  Conference. 
In  the  meantime,  (as  in  the  case  of  a  bad  law  by  a  state  legislature,)  the  evil 
must  be  borne  until  reversal  or  repeal  can  be  accomplished.  In  this  sense, 
only,  the  effect  of  a  vicious  enactment  is  that  it  stands  for  the  time,  in  its 
effects  and  its  consequences,  as  if  it  had  been  validity  and  wisely  enacted. 

4.  But  there  is  no  legitimate  parallelism  between  the  unconstitutional 
enactments  of  a  General  Conference  and  such  enactments  by  the  British 
Parliament.  .  .  .  The  legislative  authority  of  the  Parliament  is  omnip- 
otent and  not  subject  to  review,  nor  limited  by  any  restrictions.  The  author- 
ity of  the  General  Conference  is  distinctly  limited  both  in  powers  and  scope, 
and  is  created  subject  to  specific  and  explicit  instructions.  Undoubtedly  it 
is  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  civil  courts,  in  any  and  all  matters  not 
purely  ecclesiastical,  and  even  as  to  these  in  all  probability. 

2.  The  other  principle,  which  Dr.  Warren  applies  only 
to  judicial  decisions,  is  equally  applicable  to  legislative  enact- 
ments. The  principle  is  thus  stated,  Actus  inceptus  cujus 
■perfectio  pendet  ex  voluntate  partium,  revocari  potest;  si 
autem  pendet  ex  voluntate  tertice  personcB  vel  ex  contingenti , 
revocari  non  potest.  This  is  a  well-established  legal  prin- 
ciple whose  validity  cannot  be  questioned. 

And  this  puts  us  in  the  way  of  what  seems  to  be  an 
unanswerable  argument  for  the  absolute  validity  of  the 
Plan  of  Separation,  which,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  rests  upon 
the  very  principles  advocated  by  those  who  contend  for 
the  universal  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  suprem- 
acy of  the  General  Conference.  The  particular  legal  maxim 
cited  above  has  been  often  noticed  in  this  connection,  but 
the  whole  argument,  as  here  stated,  has  not  before  been  ad- 
duced. The  enactment  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844., 
32 


49^   Constitutional  Validity  of  the  Plan  of  Separation. 


in  providing  the  Plan  of  Separation,  is  absolutely  valid,  con- 
stitutional, and  binding,  because  in  the  very  act  of  exercising 
its  legislative  function  the  General  Conferetice  was  also  in 
full  possession  of  its  supreme  judicial  powers,  and  thus  the 
highest  judicatory  of  the  Church  pronounced  the  Plan  con- 
stitutional in  the  very  moment  that  the  highest  legislature  of 
the  Church  enacted  it  into  a  law.  No  independent  Church 
tribunal  could  sit  in  judgment  upon  it;  and  its  reconsider- 
ation by  any  subsequent  General  Conference  was  shut  off  by 
the  second  branch  of  the  legal  principle  I  have  just  cited — 
Si auteni  pendet  ex  voluntate  terticepersonce  vel  ex  contingenti, 
revocari  non  potest.  Its  irreversible  constitutionality  is  thus 
secured.  Hence  the  repudiating  act  of  1848  was  ab  initio 
null  and  void.  The  Journal  of  1844  in  general,  and  the 
Plan  of  Separation  in  particular,  without  explanation  or 
defense,  without  note  or  comment,  as  a  finished  and  com- 
plete official  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  once  its 
supreme  legislature  and  its  highest  judicial  tribunal,  must 
stand  as  the  strictly  legal  and  constitutional  basis  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  All  federation  or  ap- 
proaches to  any  sort  of  cooperation  or  union  can  proceed  with 
equal  honor  to  both  parties  on  the  frank  recognition  of  this 
undeniable  fact.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
rejoices  that  the  Journal  of  1844  is  a  part  of  the  inexpunge- 
able  official  records  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
No  more  need  be  asked  than  a  recoginition  of  its  irreversi- 
ble constitutionality  and  validity  on  the  basis  of  the  supreme 
legislative  and  judicial  powers  of  the  General  Conference 
which  enacted  it.    Can  this  recognition  be  withheld? 


APPENDIX  V. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  GOVERNMENT  IN 
AMERICAN  METHODISM. 

IT  is  a  matter  of  some  importance  to  establish  beyond  ques- 
tion the  view  everywhere  assumed  or  advocated  in  this 
History  that  the  year  1792,  and  not  the  year  1784,  marks  the 
beginning  of  General  Conference  government  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  America;  a  view  which,  with 
every  fresh  study  of  the  abundant,  and  what  seems  to  be  the 
decisive  and  conclusive,  evidence,  commands  more  and 
more  the  full  and  unhesitating  conviction  of  the  author.  If 
a  General  Conference  is  the  sole  legislative  body  of  the 
Church,  whose  enactments  remain  in  force,  unrepealable 
and  unmodifiable,  until  the  meeting  of  its  successor — a  plain 
definition,  having  the  most  ample  warrant  of  law  and  of 
fact — then  it  is  clear  that  the  Christmas  Conference  was  not 
a  General  Conference,  since  indisputably  the  legislative  au- 
thority of  the  Church  was  otherwise  exercised  between  1784, 
the  date  of  its  meeting,  and  1792,  the  date  of  the  assem- 
bling of  its  alleged  successor.  If,  because  it  was  intend- 
ed to  be  an  assembly  of  all  the  preachers  at  one  time  and 
place,  and  took  action  for  the  organization  of  the  Church,  it 
was  not  uncommon  from  an  early  date  to  write  and  speak  of 
it  as  a  General  Conference,  it  still  remains  true  that  it  left  the 
legislative  and  electoral  authority  of  the  Church  in  the  hands 
of  the  "  Conference,"  an  existing  institution  of  some  years' 
standing,  which  continued  to  meet  annually,  and  freely  re- 
pealed and  added  to  the  enactments  of  1784,  in  the  exercise 
of  unquestioned  and  sovereign  governmental  authority;  by 
which,  also,  it  created  the  General  Conference,  properly  so 
called,  which  met  for  the  first  time  in  1792. 

Since  they  were  essentially  mass  meetings  of  the  preach- 
ing) 


500    Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government. 


ers,  exercising  the  full  authority  of  the  Church,  it  was  un- 
necessary for  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  decision  of  the 
question  before  it,  to  distinguish  between  the  Christmas 
Conference  and  the  General  Conferences  of  1792-1808;  and 
the  reference  to  the  Conference  of  1784  as  General  carries 
with  it  no  more  than  the  recognition  of  an  identical  exercise 
"'of  full  authority,  in  1784  as  in  the  later  Conferences,  by  a 
"  body  of  preachers,"  to  quote  the  language  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  "  composed  of  all  the  traveling  preachers  in  that  con- 
nection."' This  is  a  fact,  so  far  as  I  know,  never  disputed. 
But  this  judicial  decision  was  not  intended  to  cancel  and  ex- 
clude, and  in  the  nature  of  the  case  cannot  cancel  and  ex- 
clude, the  plain  record  of  history  that  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence was  an  extraordinary  and  temporary  gathering,  inter- 
polated between  the  meetings  of  the  regular  Conference  by 
a  special  call  and  for  a  special  purpose,  whose  adjournment, 
on  the  accomplishment  of  that  purpose,  was  its  final  dissolu- 
tion; while  the  General  Conference,  beginning  in  1792,  is 
the  permanent  and  sole  legislature  of  the  Church,  created  as 
the  normal  and  continuous  organ  for  the  exercise  of  its  sov- 
ereignty. The  "  Manual  of  the  Discipline,"  which  enjoys, 
I  believe,  the  approval  of  the  College  of  Bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  speaks  of  "the  minis- 
terial convention  of  1784,  at  which  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America  was  organized";  and  immediately 
quotes  Bishop  McKendree  as  saying  that,  for  purposes  of 
revising  and  perfecting  the  system  of  rules,  "a  General 
Conference  was  called,  and  met  according  to  appointment, 
Nov.  I,  1792,  and  was  continued  by  adjournments,  once  in 
four  years,  until  May,  1808,  which  was  the  last  General 
Conference  of  this  description  Sundry  altera- 
tions and  additions  were  made  at  those  five  Conferences 
[from  1792  to  1808]."^  Without  intending  to  press  the  au- 
thority of  the  Manual,  or  even  Bishop  McKendree' s  clas- 

iSee  above  pp.  4S4,  455,  footnote. 

'Manual  of  the  Discipline,  ed.  1899,  pp.  10,  11.  The  Preface  is  signed 
"R.  K.  Hargrove,  Secretary  College  of  Bishops." 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  501 


sification,  as  original  evidence,  I  may  use  this  passage  to 
mark  the  very  real  and  long  recognized  distinction  and  dif- 
ference between  the  Christmas  Conference  of  1784  and  the 
General  Conferences  of  1792-1808. 

In  "The  Making  of  Methodism"  I  have  drawn  out  at 
length  the  manifold  details  of  the  history,  and  of  the  contents 
of  the  Disciplines,  which  appear  irrefragably  to  sustain  this 
position.  I  must  content  myself  in  this  Appendix  with  a  re- 
capitulation of  the  more  important  particulars,  both  (i)  as 
contained  in  the  law-book  and  official  records  of  the  Church, 
and  (2)  as  illustrated  by  the  history  of  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference. 

I.  The  Official  Prerogative  Facts  as  Contained  in 
THE  Disciplines  from  1785  to  1792. 

There  are  certain  official  facts,  not  improperly  denomi- 
nated frerogative,  or  controlling,  derived  from  the  early 
Disciplines,  in  the  light  of  which  the  development  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  our  Church  must  be  understood ;  and  determi- 
native, in  my  judgment,  of  the  present  inquiry.  That  the 
year  1792  is  the  epoch  of  the  initiation  of  government  by  the 
General  Conference  in  American  Methodism  is  clear  in  the 
light  of  the  following  facts,  which  must  govern  the  interpre- 
tation of  every  phase  of  the  history. 

I.  No  Discipline  from  1785  to  1792  contains  the  distinc- 
tion, recognized  in  the  Discipline  from  the  latter  date,  be- 
tween General  and  Annual  Conferences,  as  bodies  of  differ- 
entfunctions  and  powers  in  our  Church.  The  only  legislative 
or  electoral  body  recognized  by  the  Discipline  of  1785,  or- 
dained by  the  Christmas  Conference,  is  "the  Conference," 
which  met  annually,  and  exercised  supreme  governmental 
authority.  From  1787  the  single  section  on  Conferences  is 
entitled,  "  Of  the  Method  of  Holding  a  Conference  and  the 
Business  to  be  Done  Therein."  Twelve  questions  indicate 
business  now  done  in  Annual  Conferences;  a  supplementary^ 
one  includes  the  election  and  ordination  of  Bishops. 

II.  The  Discipline  of  1792,  ordained  by  that  General  Con- 


502     Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government. 


ference,  contains  for  the  first  time  the  section,  "  Of  the  Gen- 
eral and  District  Conferences,"  in  which  the  functions  and 
composition  of  the  two  orders  of  Conferences  are  separated 
and  defined,  and  provision  is  legally  made  for  another  General 
Conference  in  1796.  (Annual  Conferences  were  then  called 
District — the  name  must  not  mislead.) 

III.  As  the  Disciplines  from  1785  to  1792  include  no  rec- 
ognition of  a  General  Conference  as  the  governing  body  of 
the  Church,  so  their  title-pages  contain  no  recognition  of  the 
Christmas  Conference  as  other  than  "a  Cotiference  held  at 
Baltimore,"  etc.  Neither  on  their  title-pages,  nor  in  their 
provisions  for  the  government  of  the  Church,  do  these  Dis- 
ciplines recognize  a  General  Conference.  (See  the  title- 
pages  of  these  Disciplines  as  cited  in  full  above  in  Appen- 
dix I.) 

IV.  On  the  title-page  of  the  Discipline  of  1792  we  find  for 
the  first  time  the  language  "revised  and  approved  at  the 
General  Conference,  held  at  Baltimore,  etc.,  in  Novem- 
ber, 1792"  ;  only  then  did  that  institution  come  into  existence. 

V.  As  the  annual  Conferences,  or  simply  "  Conferences," 
were,  after  the  dissolution  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  the 
untrammeled  depositories  of  all  the  legislative  powers  of  the 
Church,  they  overturned,  retrenched,  or  expanded  anything 
they  chose  ordained  by  that  body,  and  exercised  all  the 
powers  of  the  supreme  legislature  of  the  Church.  Conse- 
quently we  have  seven  annual  editions  of  the  Discipline,  as 
indicated  above  in  Appendix  I.,  for  1785,  1786,  1787,  1788, 
1789,  1790,  and  1 791,  before  the  issue  of  the  eighth  and 
first  quadrennial  edition — good  for  four  years,  unmodifiable 
by  any  yearly  Conference — by  the  first  General  Conference 
of  1792.  In  the  interval  between  1784  and  1792  the  yearly 
Conference  exercised  freely  all  the  powers  afterwards  con- 
fined to  General  Conferences,  issuing  a  Discipline  annually, 
repeatedly  annulling  the  acts  of  the  Christmas  Conference — 
as  in  the  repeal  of  its  action  on  slavery  at  the  first  session  of 
the  Conference  in  1785;  engaging  in  the  election  of  super- 
intendents— as  when  the  Conference  of  1787  put  its  veto 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  503 


upon  Wesley's  nomination  of  Whatcoat  and  Garrettson  to 
the  episcopacy;  and  directing  all  the  officers  and  operations 
of  the  Church.  Indeed,  the  Conference  of  1787  exercised 
the  highest  conceivable  act  of  sovereignty  when  it  expunged 
from  the  Discipline  the  only  enactment  w^hich  could  be  re- 
garded as  a  limitation  upon  its  sovereignty  which  the  Christ- 
mas Conference  had  placed  in  that  book — namely,  the 
resolution  of  submission  to  Mr.  Wesley;  thus  asserting  the 
final  and  complete  autonomy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America,  which  must  be  dated  from  1787  and  not 
from  1784.  In  1789  and  1790  the  Conference  (or  Confer- 
ences) created  and  empowered  the  Council,  as  a  central  or- 
gan of  general  administration;  and  in  1792  it  called  the 
General  Conference  of  that  year. 

It  thus  appears  that  to  date  the  beginning  of  General  Con- 
ference government  in  American  Methodism  in  1784  is  to 
falsify  the  history  of  the  Church  in  many  particulars:  (l)  it 
ignores  the  series  of  annual  Disciplines,  with  their  multiplied 
changes  issued  from  1785  to  1791;  (2)  it  implies  that  the 
Christmas  Conference  was  an  organ  in  and  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  which  it  never  was,  since  government 
implies  permanency,  and  the  Christmas  Conference — as  ap- 
pears from  its  call,  its  acts,  and  its  dissolution — was  an  organ, 
not  for  government,  but  for  organization;  (3)  it  unhistoric- 
ally  cancels  the  government  of  the  Church  by  yearly  as- 
semblies, which  had  as  full  sovereignty  as  belonged  to  the 
General  Conferences  from  1792  to  1808  inclusive,  and  to 
the  Christmas  Conference  itself,  since  the  Conference  of 
1787  canceled  the  only  act  of  the  Christmas  Conference 
which  could  be  regarded  as  a  prohibitory  or  constitutional 
limitation  of  its  own  sovereignty — the  resolution  of  obedience 
to  the  commands  of  Mr.  Wesley  in  matters  of  Chuixh  gov- 
ernment. So  far  was  the  sovereignty  of  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference from  being  constitutionally  projected  over  General 
Conferences  and  the  entire  Church  until  1844  ^""^  pres- 
ent day,  that  the  true  state  of  the  case  is  that  its  sovereign- 
ty was  not  so  much  as  extended  over  the  yearly  Confer- 


504     Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government. 


ences  of  1785  to  1791  until  the  meeting  of  its  so-called  suc- 
cessor. 

But  I  must  refrain  from  entering  into  further  particulars. 
The  mere  statement  of  these  simple  facts  cannot  bring  home 
to  the  consciousness  of  the  reader  the  fullness  and  weight  of 
knowledge  and  conviction  that  spring  from  the  monotonous 
reiteration  in  these  connections  of  the  sole  and  supreme  gov- 
ernmental authority  of  the  only  organ  of  government  recog- 
nized in  the  Disciplines  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America  from  its  organization  to  1792.  As  one  picks  up 
Discipline  after  Discipline,  and  examines  its  provisions  in 
detail,  he  sees  that  here  is  a  system  of  government,  simple 
and  original,  differing  widely  from  that  which  prevailed  aft- 
erwards. Though,  throughout  this  period,  "the  Confer- 
ence "  met  in  sections,  varying  from  three  in  1785  to  sixteen 
in  1792,  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  never  recognized  any 
impairment  of  its  unity  or  supremacy,  and  from  beginning 
to  end  of  the  period  the  legally  constituted  organ  of  govern- 
ment in  the  Church  was  "  the  Conference." 

In  addition  to  and  in  the  light  of  these  general  preroga- 
tive facts,  derived  from  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  and 
officially  decisive  and  conclusive  that  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  America  was  not  under  the  government  of 
General  Conferences  from  its  organization  to  the  assembling 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1792,  I  shall  present  an  his- 
torical resume  and  analysis,  elaborated  in  the  pages  of  this 
History,  and  more  fully  in  "  The  Making  of  Methodism." 

II.  Thk  Facts  of  History  and  the  Historical 
Argument. 

I.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  a  personal  expedient 
of  Asbury's,  initiated  by  him  and  carried  through  by  the 
council  of  preachers  at  Barratt's  Chapel,  where  he  first 
met  Dr.  Coke  in  November,  1784,  when  he  declared,  "  If 
the  preachers  unanimously  choose  me,  I  shall  not  act  in 
the  capacity  I  have  hitherto  done  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appoint- 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  505 


ment."  The  following  facts  appear  to  be  indisputably  es- 
tablished by  adequate  and  convincing  historical  evidence: 

(1)  The  Christmas  Conference  was  a  called  Conference 
unexpectedly  intercalated  between  the  regular  sessions  of 
the  American  Conference  for  1784  and  1785  ; 

(2)  It  was  no  part  of  "Mr.  Wesley's  plan"  for  the 
organization  or  government  of  the  American  Methodist 
Church ; 

(3)  It  was  not  provided  for  by  the  American  Conference; 

(4)  Its  necessity  was  not  felt  by  Coke,  either  on  the  basis 
of  his  instructions  or  on  that  of  his  personal  and  official  re- 
sponsibility' ; 

(5)  It  was  not  called  by  Asbury  acting  independently  on 
his  authority  as  General  Assistant; 

(6)  It  was  called  by  a  council  of  preachers,  about  fifteen 
in  number,  who  had  met  for  Quarterly  Meeting  purposes  at 
Barratt's  Chapel,  Delaware,  November  14,  1784,  Asbury 
suggesting  and  initiating,  and  both  he  and  Coke  concurring; 

(7)  Its  purpose  as  evinced  by  strictly  contemporary  evi- 
dence was  to  pass  on  "the  design  of  organizing  the  Meth- 
odists into  an  Independent  Episcopal  Church,"'  i.  e.,  to  take 
action  on  "Mr.  Wesley's  plan,"  involving  a  decision  upon 
the  appointment  and  ordination  of  superintendents,  elders, 
and  deacons — some  of  them  already  made,  and  some  of 
them  yet  to  be  made — and  the  acceptance  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
provision  of  the  sacraments  for  the  American  Methodists ; 
brought  concretely  to  the  notice  of  the  council  at  Barratt's 
by  the  presence  of  a  joint  superintendent  (Dr.  Coke)  and 
an  elder  (Mr.  Whatcoat),  appointed,  ordained,  and  com- 
missioned by  Mr.  Wesley — the  nature  and  finality  of  which 
acts  on  his  part  might  well  call  for  examination  by  the 
Americans;  by  their  administration  of  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  and  subsequently  of  baptism;  by  their 
parchments  of  ordination  signed  by  Mr.  Wesley;  by  a  cir- 
cular letter  from  Mr.  Wesley  hereinbefore  particularly  no- 
ticed; and  by  a  Sunday  Service  compiled  by  Mr.  Wesley 
and  brought  over  in  sheets  by  Dr.  Coke. 


5o6     Beginning  of  General  Conference  Govern7nent. 


Some  of  these  points  will  be  further  explicated  below. 

II.  In  insisting  on  a  Conference  of  all  the  preachers,  As- 
bury  had  not  the  remotest  idea  of  originating  a  new  organ 
of  government  in  American  Methodism:  indeed,  the  necessi- 
ty for  such  a  new  organ  had  not  yet  become  manifest  to  any- 
body. He  intended  simply  the  interposition  of  the  temporary 
but  efficient  barrier  of  the  electoral  voice  of  the  American 
itinerants  against  the  supremacy  of  Mr.  Wesley  exercised  in 
his  appointment  to  office  as  joint  superintendent.  In  con- 
structing this  barrier  he  drew  together  of  his  own  motion, 
through  the  council  at  Barratt's,  about  sixty  preachers,  who 
had  previously  for  some  years  been  meeting  as  two  bodies 
only,  whose  proceedings  were  recorded  as  those  of  one  Con- 
ference ;  in  whose  hands  the  Christmas  gathering  left  the 
government  of  the  Church,  and  which,  accordingly,  contin- 
ued its  annual  sessions  and  legislative  functions  after  as  be- 
fore the  meeting  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  When  the 
General  Conference  in  1792  was  proposed  by  others,  As- 
bury  was  stubbornly  opposed  to  it. 

III.  It  is  certain  that  Wesley  included  no  such  body  as  a 
"  General  Conference"  in  his  plan  for  the  organization  and 
government  of  American  Methodism;  nor  is  it  in  evidence 
that  he  designed  such  a  temporary  organizing  convention 
as  the  Christmas  Conference;  nor  did  Dr.  Coke  anticipate, 
until  the  action  at  Barratt's,  either  such  a  permanent  or  such 
a  temporary  assembly,  for  his  instructions  contained  no 
such  directions ;  and,  under  his  commission  from  Wesley, 
he  might  have  organized  the  Church  without  such  a  gather- 
ing, for,  as  Coke  declares  Dickins  justly  argued  when  he 
urged  him  to  make  known  his  character  and  commission  in 
New  York  on  his  first  landing,  "  Mr.  Wesley  had  determined 
the  point."  Had  Asbury  concurred  with  Wesley  and  Coke, 
the  Christmas  Conference  would  not  have  met. 

IV.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  entirely  unexpected 
in  its  call  (Conferences  for  later  times  having  been  appoint- 
ed the  preceding  year)  emanating  from  Asbury  and  the 
preachers  at  Barratt's;    so  unexpected  that  some  of  the 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  507 


preachers,  including  Jesse  Lee,  did  not  receive  timely  no- 
tice and  could  not  be  present. 

V.  Granting  that  the  powers  of  the  Christmas  Conference, 
with  the  acquiescence  of  Mr.  Asbury,  as  outUned  above, 
and  of  Dr.  Coke,  as  Mr.  Wesley's  representative,  were  the 
powers  of  the  whole  Connection,  this  fact  is  not  decisive  of 
its  character;  since  the  powers  of  the  whole  Church  have 
been  exercised  at  different  periods  (i)  by  Conferences 
meeting  annually  which  are  not  classed  as  General,  as  from 
1785  to  1792;  (2)  by  General  Conferences;  and  (3)  by  Con- 
ventions, as  at  Louisville  in  1845. 

VL  The  Christmas  Conference  was  an  assembly  of  lay 
preachers  who  came  together  for  the  express  purpose  of  in- 
itiating ministerial  orders,  derived  from  Wesley  through 
Coke,  Whatcoat,  and  Vase}^  and  for  the  organization  of  an 
Episcopal  Church.  When  they  met  no  Church,  with  orders 
and  sacraments,  existed;  when  they  adjourned  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  America  had  been  created.  It 
was  not  a  body  standing  within  the  Church  for  its  govern- 
ment; but  one  standing  anterior  to  the  Church  for  its  crea- 
tion. General  Conferences  are  the  creation  of  the  Church, 
which  has  existed  wdthout  them;  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America  is  the  creation  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, which,  after  such  a  birth,  dissolved  and  died.  In  an 
unshared  act  and  preeminence  this  Conference  thus  created 
the  Church.  When  the  Conference  met,  this  Church  did 
not  exist:  when  it  adjourned,  episcopacy  and  the  other  or- 
ders of  the  ministry,  sacraments,  liturgy,  and  Discipline, 
had  all  been  secured  and  provided.  In  these  respects  its 
work  is  unique,  and  in  the  nature  of  the  case  has  not  been 
and  cannot  be  repeated  in  the  history  of  the  Church;  that 
work  stamps  it  as  an  organizing — not  a  constitutional — con- 
vention. It  was  not  a  constitutional  convention  because  it 
set  up  no  institutions  and  established  no  ordinances  which 
the  subsequent  ordinary  legislatures  of  the  Church,  the  year- 
ly Conferences  from  1785  to  1792,  and  the  General  Confer- 
ences from  1792  to  1808,  could  not  abolish.    Similarly  it 


5o8     Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government. 


was  not  a  General  Conference  because  it  established  no  or- 
dinances which  the  yearly  Conferences  from  1785  to  1792, 
between  its  own  meeting  and  that  of  its  alleged  successor, 
could  not  abolish. 

VII.  As  indicated  above,  when  it  adjourned,  it  dissolved; 
as  a  temporary  expedient,  improvised  to  meet  an  unexpected 
emergency,  this  "ministerial  convention" — to  adopt  the 
title  bestowed  upon  it  by  the  "  Manual" — on  its  adjournment 
ceased  wholly  and  forever  to  exist.  It  had  no  successor. 
The  General  Conference  of  1792  did  not  assemble  by  au- 
thority of  the  Christmas  Conference,  or  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing done  by  that  body. 

VIII.  All  the  legislative,  executive,  and  electoral  powers 
of  the  Christmas  Conference  descended  on  its  decease  to 
the  "Conference";  in  some  cases  of  the  first  importance 
even  to  the  extent  of  a  prompt  annulling  of  the  action  of 
the  Conference  of  1784.  Four  eminent  examples  alone 
need  be  cited,  (i)  The  Conference  in  1785,  at  its  first 
session,  repealed  the  action  of  the  Christmas  Conference 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  as  contained  in  Question  42,  a 
very  voluminous  and  precise  piece  of  work;  at  the  same  time 
were  repealed  Questions  23,  53,  63,  and  64.  (2)  In  1787,  as 
noticed  above,  the  Conference  expunged  the  resolution  of 
submission  to  Mr.  Wesley.  (3)  In  1789  and  1790  Asbury 
carried  through  all  the  sessions  of  those  years,  with  great 
difficulty  and  anxiety,  the  measures  relative  to  the  creation 
and  empoweriUjj  of  the  "Council,"  as  a  central  and  gen- 
eral, though  not  supreme,  organ  of  government.  (4)  At 
the  sessions  in  1792,  the  Conference  (or  Conferences)  called 
the  General  Conference  of  that  year. 

IX.  Before  1792  the  Church  was  as  Destitute  of  a  Gen- 
eral Conference  as  an  organ  of  government  as  if  the  Christ- 
mas Conference  had  never  been  held.  Until  1792  there  was 
no  General  Conference  in  law  or  in  fact,  i.  e.,  (i)  the  Church, 
with  its  annual  legislating  Conference,  capable  of  annulling 
any  act  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  was  not  under  the  leg- 
islative control  of  any  past  body  of  the  nature  of  a  General 


Beginning  of  General  Cotiference  Government.  509 


Conference;  (2)  none  existed  or  exercised  legislative  or  elec- 
toral powers  in  fact;  (3)  none  was  provided  for  in  the  Dis- 
cipline; (4)  nobody  could  say  that  any  such  would  ever 
convene;  (5)  none  was  contemplated  by  Asbury  and  the 
Church  until  the  final  breakdown  of  the  rival  scheme  of 
the  Council  demonstrated  its  necessity. 

X.  So  completely  were  the  powers  of  the  ministry  and 
the  Church  which  for  a  moment  had  been  exercised  for  a 
special  purpose  in  the  Christmas  Conference  transferred  to 
the  yearly  Conferences,  that  the  usual  method  of  effecting 
legislation,  at  least  after  the  usage  of  settling  matters  in  the 
final  session  at  Baltimore  appears  to  have  come  to  an  end 
in  1787,  was  to  pass  it  around  to  the  several  sessions,  or 
Conferences,  until  all  had  acted  upon  it,  as  illustrated 
above  in  the  legislation  on  the  Council  in  1789  and  1790. 

XL  Because  there  was  no  General  Conference,  and  As- 
bury did  not  wish  one,  he  devised  the  ignominious  scheme 
of  the  Council,  which,  by  authority  of  the  yearly  Confer- 
ences, was  for  two  years  the  general  administrative  body  of 
American  Methodism,  as  outlined  in  a  previous  chapter  of 
this  History.  The  creation  and  existence  of  the  Council 
seem  to  prove  that  to  include  the  term  from  1785  to  1792 
within  the  period  of  the  permanent  and  orderly  government 
of  the  Church  by  authority  of  General  Conferences  is  en- 
tirely without  historical  foundation. 

XII.  Asbury's  scheme  of  a  Council,  and  the  scheme  of 
Coke,  Lee,  and  O'Kelly  for  a  General  Conference,  were 
rival  schemes  for  the  relief  of  the  distressed  Church,  threat- 
ened with  chaos.  Says  Snethen,  "The  instant  a  General 
Conference  was  acceded  to,  the  Council  was  superseded." 

XIII.  Coke,  Lee,  and  O'Kelly  originated,  and  Asbur}'^ 
stubbornly  opposed,  the  creation  of  a  General  Conference  as 
the  supreme  organ  of  government  in  American  Methodism : 
the  controversy  was  settled  by  convening  the  First  General 
Conference  in  1792.  Thus  the  General  Conference  is  a 
special  product  of  the  situation  of  American  Methodism, 
originating  on  this  continent,  previously  and  to  this  day  un- 


5IO    Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government. 


known  in  British  Methodism.  To  fix  on  1784  as  the  epoch 
of  the  introduction  of  General  Conference  government  into 
American  Methodism  is  to  obscure  and  falsify  the  material 
and  relevant  facts  by  projecting  the  creation  of  the  Ameri- 
can General  Conference  back  eight  years  anterior  to  the 
existence  of  this  definite  and  fixed  institution,  as  recognized 
by  the  official  records  of  the  Church,  and  demonstrated  by 
the  entire  history  of  the  period. 

But  the  limits  of  an  Appendix  forbid  further  details,  which 
have  been  amply  considered  elsewhere.  The  Discipline  of 
1792,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  American  Methodism, 
substitutes  for  "the  Conference"  two  bodies,  "the  General 
and  District  [Annual]  Conferences."  Never  before  in  the 
history  of  the  Church  do  we  find  such  a  division,  distribu- 
tion, and  definition  of  powers  between  these  two  orders  of 
Conferences,  which  have  continued  in  the  Discipline  and  in 
the  Church  to  this  day.  The  act  and  epoch  are  of  historical, 
legal,  and  disciplinary  force  and  record  in  the  strictest  sense 
of  the  terms.  The  year  1792  must  rank  with  1784  and  1808  as 
of  first-rate  importance  in  the  constitutional  history  of  Episco- 
pal Methodism.  In  1792,  for  the  first  time  in  the  law-book  of 
the  Church,  the  question  is  asked,  "Who  shall  compose  the 
General  Conference?"  and  its  membership  is  defined — all 
the  traveling  preachers  in  full  connection.  For  the  first 
time  a  sovereign  successor  of  the  same  order  is  constituted. 
"When  and  where  shall  the  next  General  Conference  be 
held?"  is  asked,  and  the  answer  recorded,  "On  the  istday 
of  November,  in  the  year  1796,  in  the  town  of  Baltimore." 
With  the  creation  of  the  General  Conference,  the  election  of 
Bishops  is  made  its  exclusive  prerogative;  and,  likewise  for 
the  first  time,  these  officers  are  made  amenable  to  the  newly 
constituted  tribunal.  Between  1785  and  1792,  both  their 
election  and  their  accountabihty  were  in  the  hands  of  "the 
Conference,"  which  thus,  with  reference  to  the  episcopacy, 
exercised  all  the  prerogatives  which  have  been  confined  to 
General  Conferences  from  1792  to  the  present  day.  And 
so  in  the  Discipline  of  1792,  from  which  all  these  citations 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  511 


and  facts  are  directly  gathered,  we  have  the  original  legal 
creation  of  the  General  Conference  and  definition  of  its 
powers.  From  1792  the  legislative  function  inheres  exclu- 
sively in  the  General  Conference.  And  the  law-book — the 
Discipline — now  goes  forth  for  the  first  time  to  the  Church 
with  the  notice  on  its  title-page  that  it  was  "  revised  and  ap- 
proved "  by  a  body  styled  "  the  General  Copference." 

These  decisive  facts  of  the  Discipline  and  of  the  history  of 
the  Church  may  suffice.  On  them  I  am  content  to  rest  the 
inevitable  conclusions.  They  are  fully  able  to  sustain  them. 
The  assembling  of  the  General  Conference  of  1792,  with 
the  provision  for  a  succession  of  like  order,  and  the  legal 
division  and  definition  of  the  powers  of  General  and  An- 
nual Conferences,  constitute  by  every  token  and  in  an  ab- 
solute sense  the  creation  of  an  institution,  before  non- 
existent, (i)  by  deliberate  purpose  and  legislative  enact- 
ment; (2)  to  meet  acknowledged  practical  necessities,  ex- 
istent then,  but  not  in  1784;  and  (3)  to  the  exclusion  and 
abolition  of  a  rival  scheme  of  general  administration — the 
Council — then  supposed  to  be  operative.  From  1792,  the 
General  Conference  has  continued  the  permanent  and  sole 
organ  of  legislation  in  American  Methodism.  The  conclu- 
sion appears  overwhelmingly  estabhshed  that  the  year  1792, 
and  not  the  year  1784,  marks  the  beginning  of  General 
Conference  government  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America. 

Here  this  Appendix  might  well  end.  But  it  may  not  be 
undesirable  to  point  out 

III.  The  Nature  of  the  Christmas  Conference  as  an 
Organizing  Convention. 

The  Christmas  Conference  has  for  a  long  time  been  the 
distinctive  name,  in  history  and  literature,  of  the  assembly 
that  met  on  Christmas  eve,  1784.  It  called  itself  a  "  Con- 
ference." There  is  little  or  no  need  to  fashion  another 
name  for  it.    But  those  who  have  reflected  upon  its  history 


512     Beginning  of  General  Co7iference  Government. 


and  acts  have  very  generally  hit  upon  "  convention  "  as  its 
proper  designation.  Thus,  Stevens  calls  it  an  "  extraordi- 
nary convention";  the  Manual  of  the  Discipline  styles  it  a 
"ministerial  convention";  and  its  most  appropriate  desig- 
nation, parliamentarily,  historically,  and  legally  exact,  has 
seemed  to  the  present  writer  to  be  "  organizing  convention." 
It  has  none  of  the  characteristics,  and  no  claim  to  the  title, 
of  a  "constitutional  convention";  though,  at  the  division 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  legal  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Northern  branch  sought  to  vindicate  that 
character  for  it;  a  contention  which  was  not  sustained  by 
the  courts.    Nor  is  it  by  history. 

That  the  Christmas  Conference  was  an  organizing  con- 
vention may  be  briefly  indicated,  at  the  risk  of  a  little  repeti 
tion,  by  four  considerations. 

I.  The  Extraordinary  Call. — Fortunately  the  state  of  the 
evidence  is  such  as  to  enable  us  to  mark  the  precise  moments 
of  the  conception  and  birth  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 
This  positive  evidence  of  the  origin  of  the  body,  establish- 
ing a  definite  beginning  and  histor}^,  of  itself  excludes  mere 
theories  and  hypotheses  for  which  proof  ad  rem  is  lacking. 
We  know  that  when  Dr.  Coke  arrived  in  New  York,  Mr. 
Dickins,  so  far  from  receiving  the  impression  from  the  doc- 
tor's communications  that  Mr.  Wesley  designed  the  meeting 
of  a  Conference  to  pass  on  his  plan,  pressed  Coke  "ear- 
nestly to  make  it  public,  because,  as  he  most  justly  argued, 
Mr.  Wesley  had  determined  the  point."  We  know  that  at 
Philadelphia  Dr.  Coke  did  open  "  to  the  society  our  new 
plan  of  church  government."  We  know  that  in  his  circular 
letter  Mr.  Wesley  decisively  and  definitively  said,  "I  have 
accordingly  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  Asbury 
to  be  joint  Superintendents  over  our  brethren  in  North 
America."  We  know  that  when  this  appointment  was  com- 
municated to  Asbury,  who  was  then  holding  the  office  of 
general  assistant  by  Conference  election,  with  Mr.  Wesley's 
confirmation  thereof,  his  "  answer  then  was,  if  the  preachers 
unanimously  choose  me,  I  shall  not  act  in  the  capacity  I 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  513 


have  hitherto  done  by  Mr,  Wesley's  appointment,"  decUn- 
ing  office  on  the  terms  tendered.    We  know  that  Asbury 
had,  in  expectation  of  Dr.  Coke  and  his  embassy,  "called 
together  [at  Barratt's]  a  considerable  number  of  the  preach- 
ers to  form  a  council,"  and  had  informed  Mr.  Wesley's  dele- 
gate that  ''if  they  [the  aforesaid  preachers]  -wereofofinion 
that  it  would  be  expedient  immediately  to  call  a  conference^  it 
should  be  done."*    We  know  that  these  preachers,  about 
fifteen  in  number,  "were  accordingly  called,  and,  after 
debate,  were  unanimously  of  opinion  that  it  would  be  best 
immediately  to  call  a  conference  of  all  the  traveling  preach- 
ers on  the  continent,"  and  that  the  topic  before  these  preach- 
ers when  they  made  this  call  was  "  the  design  of  organizing 
the  Methodists  into  an  Independent  Episcopal  Church."* 
This  is  the  positive,  precise,  essentially  complete  account 
of  the  actual  historical  inception  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, derived  exclusively  from  the  absolutely  contemporary 
witness  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury.    We  know  that  as 
late  as  1787  Mr.  Wesley  was  opposed  to  the  decision  of 
questions  by  the  voice  of  the  majority  in  the  American  Con- 
ference.   (See  above,  p.  227.)    There  is  nowhere  a  trace 
of  evidence  that  the  idea  of  the  meeting  of  such  a  body  as  the 
Christmas  Conference  had  entered  any  human  brain  before 
it  took  shape  in  that  of  Asbury.    To  assert  for  it  any  other 
origin  in  the  face  of  such  evidence  is  impossible  without  dis- 
regard of  the  simplest  canons  of  historical  testimony. 

I  have  said  above  that  Mr.  Asbury  interposed  the  Con- 
ference as  a  barrier  between  himself  and  the  authority  of 
Mr.  Wesley.  That  he  did  this,  and  that  he  did  it  with- 
out wicked  rebellion,  and  without  the  desire  or  intention  of 
prostituting  power  for  personal  ends,  but  with  wise  and  far- 
sighted  statesmanship,  is  abundantly  evident  from  the  utter- 
ances of  Mr.  Asbury  himself.  As  we  have  seen,  he  was 
"shocked"  when  informed  of  the  intentions  of  Coke, 
Whatcoat,  and  Vasey  in  coming  to  America.  His  answer  then 
was  a  point-blank  refusal  to  act  as  joint  superintendent  by 


33 


*  I  have  italicized  the  words  so  printed. 


514     Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government. 


Mr.  Wesley's  appointment.  The  unanimous  choice  of  the 
preachers  could  alone  induce  Asbury  to  accept  office,  and 
this  independence  of  his  led  immediately  and  necessarily  to 
the  calling  of  the  Conference.  Again:  of  the  passage  of 
the  minute  of  submission  to  Mr.  Wesley  at  the  Conference 
itself,  he  declared  in  1796:  "I  never  approved  of  that  bind- 
ing minute.  I  did  not  think  it  practical  expediency  to  obey 
Mr.  Wesley,  at  three  thousand  miles  distance,  in  all  matters 
relative  to  church  government."  But  Mr.  Wesley  did  think 
it  "practical  expediency";  and  just  here  the  issue  was 
joined  between  him  and  Mr.  Asbury,  who  adds  the  oft- 
quoted  words  with  regard  to  the  binding  minute,  "  I  was 
mute  and  modest  when  it  passed,  and  I  was  mute  when  it 
was  expunged." 

Thus  we  conclude  that  because  the  Christmas  Conference 
was  a  called  body,  unexpectedly  intercalated  between  the 
regular  sessions  of  the  American  Conference  for  1784  and 
1785  ;  because  it  was  not  part  of  Mr.  Wesley's  "plan  "  for  the 
organization  or  government  of  the  Church ;  because  it  was  not 
called  by  Dr.  Coke  or  Mr.  Asbury,  or  both  of  them  together, 
acting  independently  and  officially ;  because  it  was  called  by 
a  Council  of  preachers,  brought  together  by  Asbury  to  "  form 
a  council"  atBarratt's  Chapel,  Delaware,  November  14, 1784 
— this  Council  "  after  debate  "  being  unanimously  of  opinion 
that  it  would  be  best  immediately  to  call  a  "  conference  of  all 
the  traveling  preachers  on  the  continent";  because  the  pur- 
pose of  calling  the  Conference  was  to  have  it  pass  on  "the 
design  of  organizing  the  Methodists  into  an  Independent 
Episcopal  Church,"  i.e.,  to  take  action  on  "  Mr.  Wesley's 
plan,"  involving  a  decision  particularly  upon  the  appoint- 
ment and  ordination  of  superintendents — the  Conference 
deciding  whether  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment  and  ordination 
of  Dr.  Coke  was  complete  and  final  in  itself,  or  whether  it 
needed  their  consent  and  confirmation  before  he  could  act 
as  a  joint  superintendent  among  them,  and  Mr.  Asbury  re- 
fusing ordination  as  Mr.  Wesley's  appointee  without  the 
unanimous  election  of  the  preachers;  because  of  all  these 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  515 


circumstances  of  its  origin  and  call — its  extraordinary  call — 
differentiating  it  from  any  General  Conference  that  ever 
met,  we  conclude  the  Christmas  Conference  is  properly 
called  a  convention — an  organizing  convention. 

II.  It  is  froperly  called  a  convention  because  it  was  a 
self-created  body,  with  self-derived  and  self -sufficient  author- 
ity. This  point  need  not  long  detain  us.  The  authority 
of  the  Christmas  Conference  did  not  flow  to  it  from  Mr. 
Wesley,  from  the  American  Conference,  from  Dr.  Coke 
or  Mr.  Asbury,  or  both  of  them,  or  from  any  constit- 
uency of  laity  behind  it.  It  was  a  mass  meeting  of  all 
the  American  itinerants,  i.  e.,  of  all  those  who  had  ex- 
ercised the  functions  of  government  or  legislation  over 
the  Methodist  Societies  of  the  continent,  who  freely 
met  on  the  call  of  some  of  their  own  number,  specially 
convened  as  a  Council,  Mr.  Asbury  suggesting  and  Dr. 
Coke  approving  or,  at  least,  submitting  to  this  Conference 
of  independent  powers.  As  a  mass  convention  intended  to 
embrace  all  the  itinerants,  its  powers  were  self-derived  and 
self-sufficient. 

The  self-derivation  and  self-sufficiency  of  the  powers  of 
the  self-created  and  independent  body  are  evident,  also,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  as  well  as  from  the  circumstances  of 
its  historical  origin  with  which  we  are  now  so  familiar.  The 
American  preachers  assembled  "  to  constitute  themselves  into 
an  Episcopal  Church  "  ;  the  change  suggested  by  Mr.  Wesley 
"  could  not  take  effect  until  adopted  by  us,"  says  William 
Watters,  who  was  present,  "which  was  done  in  a  deliberate, 
formal  manner,  at  a  conference  called  for  that  purpose"; 
they  were,  as  distinct  from  Mr.  Wesley,  to  satisfy  themselves 
of  the  validity  of  Dr.  Coke's  episcopal  ordination,  and  con- 
firm or  reject  it,  although  the  act,  so  far  as  Mr.  Wesley  was 
concerned,  was  complete  and  final;  in  particular,  the  preach- 
ers were  called  upon  to  give  Mr.  Asbury  a  *'  unanimous 
election  "  to  the  joint  superintendency,  as  a  conditio  sine  qua 
nan  of  his  ordination,  he  flatly  refusing  to  accept  ordination 
from  Dr.  Coke  by  Mr.  Wesley's  sole  appointment.  Now, 


5i6     Beginimig  of  General  Conference  Government. 


such  a  body,  self-created  and  appealed  to,  with  these  ends 
in  view,  recognized  by  Mr.  Asbury  as  giving  him  a  title  to 
office  which  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  give,  and  affording  him 
protection  in  office  against  Mr.  Wesley  himself,  was  neces- 
sarily a  coordinate,  independent,  and  self-sufficient  source 
of  power.  For  these  reasons,  in  the  second  place,  the 
Christmas  Conference  is  properly  called  a  convention. 

III.  The  Christmas  Conference  is  'properly  called  a  con- 
vention, an  organizing  convention,  because  it  created  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  In  ^n  unshared  and  unique 
sense,  the  Christmas  Conference,  thus  called  and  consti- 
tuted, created  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  When  the 
Conference  met,  this  Church  did  not  exist;  when  it  ad- 
journed, episcopacy  and  the  other  orders  of  the  ministry, 
sacraments,  liturgy,  and  Discipline,  had  all  been  secured 
and  provided.  It  thus  stands  exterior  to  the  Church  as  an 
instrument  of  organization,  and  not  within  it  as  an  organ  of 
government.  Neither  those  who  called  it,  nor  those  who 
composed  it,  designed  it  as  an  organ  of  government.  Now, 
a  General  Conference,  whether  of  the  original,  unlimited 
order,  or  of  the  subsequent  restricted  and  delegated  class, 
is  the  creature  of  the  Church.  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  due  time  called  into  existence  such  a  body,  un- 
known in  the  previous  history  of  Methodism,  for  its  own 
government,  to  meet  the  new  conditions  and  exigencies  of 
ecclesiastical  regimen  in  America.  But  since  the  Christmas 
Conference  was  the  creator  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  it  could  not  have  been  its  creature.  By  this  token 
we  are  directed  at  once  to  its  extraordinary  and  unique  char- 
acter as  an  organizing  convention;  to  designate  such  an  or- 
ganizing or  creative  body  a  convention  is  a  correct  use  of 
language.  It  differs  from  every  General  Conference  in  this 
capital  respect:  Every  General  Conference  is  the  creature 
of  the  Church;  but  the  Church  is  the  creature  of  the  Christ- 
mas Conference. 

Turning  once  more  to  the  Minutes  of  the  Christmas 
Conference,  as  the  primary  official  and  contemporaneous 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  5^7 


source,  the  outstanding  and  overshadowing  fact  contained 
in  this  record,  subordinating  or  absorbing  all  others,  is  that 
the  body  transformed  the  Methodist  Societies  in  America 
into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Asbury,  for  obvious 
reasons,  is  careful  to  record  that  in  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence the  debates  were  free,  and  all  things  were  determined 
by  a  majority  of  votes.*  At  a  later  date  a  certificate  was 
signed  by  a  number  of  members  that  this  was  the  case. 
"We  will  form  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church,"  say 
the  members  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  in  the  third 
answer  of  their  official  Minutes,  "under  the  direction  of 
Superintendents,  Elders,  Deacons,  and  Helpers,  according 
to  the  Forms  of  Ordination  annexed  to  our  Liturgy,  and  the 
Form  of  Discipline  set  forth  in  these  Minutes."  This  an- 
swer ( I )  enumerates  the  grades  of  the  ministry  of  the  new 
Church;  (2)  specifies  its  already  printed  forms  of  ordina- 
tion; (3)  refers  to  its  printed  Liturgy,  whose  contents  have 
already  been  accurately  enumerated  in  these  pages  ;  and 
(4)  styles  "these  Minutes"  a  "Form  of  Discipline." 
This  primary  official  and  contemporaneous  record,  let  it  be 
noted,  though  supported  by  all  the  other  sources,  stands 
in  its  own  sufficiency,  decisive  of  what  was  done.  Thus 
the  orders  and  sacraments  provided  by  Mr.  Wesley  were 
freely  accepted  by  the  Christmas  Conference  ;  and  the 
election  of  one  of  the  joint  superintendents  appointed  and 
already  ordained  by  Wesley  (Dr.  Coke),  and  the  election 
and  ordination  of  the  other  joint  superintendent  appointed 
by  Wesley  (Mr.  Asbury),  with  that  of  elders  and  deacons 
followed.  By  a  free  and  independent  body  which  on  its 
own  authority,  which  Mr.  Asbury  gladly  and  Dr.  Coke  of 
necessity  recognized,  assumed  the  function  of  passing  *by 
a  vote  of  the  majority  on  the  nature  and  validity  of  Mr. 
Wesley's  acts,  the  first  American  "Episcopal  Church"  was 
organized  and  began  its  almost  unparalleled  mission  of  con- 
tinental conquest. 

IV>   The  Christmas  Conference  is  properly  styled  a  con- 


*Journal,  I.  376. 


5i8     Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government. 


vention,  and  not  a  General  Conference.,  because  when  it  ad- 
journed it  dissolved.  This  point  need  not  be  elaborated.  An 
isolated  General  Conference,  whose  laws  are  not  unalterable 
until  the  meeting  of  its  successor,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  an  im- 
possible conception  in  Methodist  Church  government.  The 
General  Conference  of  1792  was  in  no  sense  the  successor 
of  the  Christmas  Conference.  The  organizing  convention 
committed  the  supreme  government  of  the  Church  to  "the 
Conference,"  which  exercised  sovereignty  until  it  called  the 
General  Conference  into  existence  in  1792.  When  the 
Christmas  Conference  adjourned  it  ceased  to  exist. 
Let  us  sum  up : 

I.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  not  a  convention  in 
the  sense  of  being  composed  of  delegates  of  the  people  called 
Methodists  expressly  chosen  for  constitutional  purposes, 
whose  action  could  not,  therefore,  be  revised  by  "the  Con- 
ference," in  its  yearly  meetings,  or  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence. The  notion  of  the  actual,  representative,  or  construc- 
tive presence  or  action  of  the  laity,  as  distinct  from  their 
pastors,  in  the  Christmas  Conference,  or  in  the  Council  of 
preachers  that  called  it,  is  pure  fiction,  apparently  devised 
more  than  half  a  century  later  for  controversial  purposes. 
From  Dr.  Coke's  Journal  we  know  that  the  laity  were  pres- 
ent in  hundreds  at  Barratt's  Chapel — he  administered  the 
Lord's  supper,  he  says,  to  five  or  six  hundred  communi- 
cants; yet  none  of  these  were  called  into  the  Council  to 
consult  about  the  calling  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  nor 
were  they  or  any  other  laymen  invited  to  seats  in  that  body. 
There  were  no  delegates  or  representatives  of  the  laity:  the 
membership  of  the  Societies  did  not  act  in  such  manner  at 
the  organization  of  the  Church  that  a  purely  clerical  body 
could  not  undo  the  work  of  the  Conference:  in  fact,  the 
laity  did  not  act  at  all,  though  content  with  what  was  done, 
and  purely  clerical  bodies  did  immediately  begin  the  revision 
of  the  work  done  in  1784.  Such  functions  of  the  laity  were 
entirely  foreign  to  the  conceptions  of  Church  government 
entertained  by  the  fathers  of  1784  ;   this  unhistorical  idea 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government.  519 


would  perhaps  never  have  been  suggested  except  that  long 
afterwards  it  was  needed  as  a  proof  to  sustain  a  failing  cause 
that  had  little  else  upon  which  to  lean. 

2.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  not  a  convention  in  the 
sense  of  making  a  constitution  and  lodging  it  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  as  a  charter  and  definition  of  the  powers 
to  be  exercised  by  a  legislature.  No  such  constitutional 
body  assembled  in  American  Methodism  until  1808.  Yet 
it  would  be  very  easy  to  construct  a  verbal  argument  prov- 
ing the  Christmas  Conference  a  constitutional  convention. 
Asbury,  in  the  letter  to  Benson  of  1816,  refers  to  "  our  consti- 
tution," enacted  in  1784;  and  the  title  of  the  Discipline  of 
1786  is,  "The  General  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  fortning  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  said  Church^  (Italics  ours.)  But  such 
verbal  arguments  are  very  deceptive,  and  will  lead  us  astray 
unless  we  pass  to  the  realities  that  lie  behind  them.  The 
term  "  constitution,"  employed  in  these  citations,  does  not 
designate  any  unrevisable  legislation  of  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, expressly  set  apart  and  recognized  as  such;  but 
refers  to  the  necessary  permanency  of  the  principles  of  Epis- 
copal regimen  which  the  American  Methodists  had  incorpo- 
rated in  their  ecclesiastical  organization,  which,  while  they 
could  be  legally  eliminated,  speaking  from  the  standpoint  of 
pure  theory,  could  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  be  canceled  with- 
out repudiating  the  fundamental  convictions  and  practically 
irrevocable  deeds  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  American  Metho- 
dists, and  thus  overturning  all  the  foundations  that  had  been 
laid. 

3.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  a  convention  in  the 
senses  specified  and  elaborated  above:  (i)  In  its  call,  and 
the  extraordinary  purposes  and  ends  involved  therein  ;  (  2  )  As 
an  intended  mass  meeting  of  all  the  itinerants  who  had  hith- 
erto acted  as  legislators  of  the  Church,  convened  on  their  own 
motion  to  take  independent  action  on  Mr.  Wesley's  plan; 
(3)  As  creating  the  Church,  by  initiating  and  confirming  its 
orders  and  sacraments,  thus  standing  exterior  to  the  Church, 


520     Beginning  of  General  Conference  Govermnent. 


and  not  in  it;  and  (4)  As  dissolving  in  its  adjournment  and 
constituting  no  General  Conference  successor,  governmental 
sovereignty,  vi^ith  the  exception  of  the  "binding  minute," 
being  fully  committed  to  the  yearly  assembly  called  "the 
Conference." 

Lee,  speaking  of  the  council  at  Barratt's,  says  (History,  p. 
93)  "  it  w^as  judged  advisable  to  call  together  all  the  travehng 
preachers  in  a  general  conference,"  and  heads  the  chapter 
in  which  this  language  occurs,  "  From  the  first  general  Con- 
ference in  1784  to  the  end  of  the  year  1786."  In  the  chapter 
(p.  94)  he  explains  that  "it  was  considered  to  be  a  general 
conference."  That  he  did  not  himself  so  consider  it  in  the 
proper  sense,  is  evident  from  his  deliberately  adopted  and 
steadily  maintained  notation  of  the  General  Conferences, 
from  which  the  Christmas  Conference  is  excluded.  When 
his  History  was  written  in  1809 — October  28,  1809,  is  the 
date  of  his  preface — Lee  had  before  him  the  status  and 
claims  of  all  the  American  Conferences  from  1773  to 
1808,  and  was  engaged  as  an  historian  in  fixing  an  historic- 
ally adequate  and  accurate  notation  of  all  General  Confer- 
ences, to  be  chosen  and  named  out  of  all  bodies  called  Con- 
ferences, including  the  Christmas  Conference.  In  statis- 
tical and  numerical  work  of  this  sort  he  uniformly  shows 
himself  expert  and  exact.  And  Lee's  deliberately  adopted 
historical  notation  maintained  to  the  close  of  his  History  is: 
1792,  "first";  1796,  "second";  1800,  "third";  1804, 
"fourth"  ;  and  1808,  "fifth."  His  title  for  Chapter  VII.  is 
"From  the  beginning  of  the  year  1792,  in  which  the  first 
regular  General  Conference  was  held,  to  the  end  of  the 
year  1793"  (p.  174,  cf.  p.  176);  for  Chapter  IX.  "From 
the  beginning  of  the  year  1796,  including  the  second  Gen- 
eral Conference,  to  the  end  of  1799"  (p.  228);  for  Chapter 
X.  "From  the  beginning  of  the  year  1800,  including  the 
third  General  Conference,  to  the  end  of  1803  "  (p.  261,  cf. 
p.  264);  for  Chapter  XL  "  From  the  beginning  of  the  year 
1804,  including  the  fourth  general  conference,  to  the  end 


Beginning  of  General  Conference  Goverftmeni.  521 


of  the  year  1806  "  (p.  295).  The  Conference  of  1808  he 
calls  "  the  fifth  general  conference  held  in  Baltimore  on  the 
6th  of  May  "  (  p  •  345  )  •  But  there  are  other  passages  in  which 
Lee  would  naturally  have  spoken  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence as  the  first  General  Conference  had  he  so  regarded 
it;  in  some  of  which  he  distinguished  it,  with  more  or  less 
sharpness  of  contrast,  from  General  Conferences.  Thus  he 
says,  "  I  shall  therefore  take  no  further  notice  of  the  rules 
about  slavery  which  were  made  at  various  times  for  twenty- 
four  years,  i.  e.,  from  the  Christmas  Conference,  in  1784, 
to  the  last  general  conference  held  in  1808"  (p.  102), 
Speaking  of  the  college  he  says,  "The  business  was  brought 
before  the  Conference  which  met  at  Christmas"  (p.  113). 
Alluding  to  Mr.  Whatcoat's  rejection  as  a  bishop  in  1787, 
he  says,  "  Dr.  Coke  contended  that  we  were  obliged  to 
receive  Mr.  Whatcoat,  because  we  had  said  in  the  minutes 
taken  at  the  Christmas  Conference  when  we  were  first  formed 
into  a  Church  in  1784,"  etc.  (p.  126).  "Mr.  Tunnil  was 
elected  to  the  office  of  an  elder  at  the  Christmas  Conference, 
where  we  were  first  formed  into  a  Church"  (p.  162).  Final- 
ly :  "  It  was  eight  years  from  the  Christmas  Conference, 
where  we  became  a  regular  church,  to  this  general  confer- 
ence [1792]  "  (p.  192).  It  may  be  noted  that  in  the  first  and 
last  passages  the  Christmas  Conference  is  distinguished  from 
General  Conferences  in  the  same  sentence,  and  that  in  three 
the  organizing  function  of  the  body  is  emphasized  as  its  dis- 
tinguishing feature. 

The  difficulties  and  dangers  of  a  merely  verda/  proof,  based 
on  the  tise  of  the  term  General  Conference,  which  had 
a  variety  of  significations,  in  contrast  with  a  real  proof, 
based  upon  an  historical  examination  of  the  facts,  may  be 
briefly  illustrated.  Asbur}-,  who  says  that  at  the  council  at 
Barratt's  "it  was  agreed  to  call  a  general  conference,"  also 
says  (Journal  I.  55)  of  the  first  American  Conference  in 
1773,  "Our  general  conference  began."  As  late  as  1798 
he  says  (II.  213),  "Some  of  our  local  preachers  complain 


522     Beginning  of  General  Conference  Government. 


that  they  have  not  a  seat  in  the  general  annual  conference." 
But  perhaps  the  most  decisive  passage  in  Asbury's  Journal 
(II.  321)  on  his  view  as  to  the  time  of  the  establishment  of 
the  General  Conference  is  found  under  date  of  Thursday, 
July  19,  1798.  Referring  to  some  accusations  of  James 
O'Kelly's  previous  to  the  General  Conference  of  1792,  he 
says,  "It  was  talked  over  in  the  yearly  conference,  for  then 
we  had  no  general  conference  established."  The  name  is 
denied  to  any  previously  established  governing  body  of  the 
Church,  while  in  the  context  it  is  thrice  appHed  to  the  body 
that  met  in  1792.  Asbury  probably  brought  with  him  from 
England  his  manifest  predilection  for  the  use  of  the  term.  In 
the  text  of  "A  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection,"  as 
inserted  in  the  Disciplines  of  1791  and  1792,  occurs  this  lan- 
guage, "To  cast  a  fuller  light  on  this  important  subject,  I 
shall  lay  before  the  reader  the  Minutes  of  several  of  our  gen- 
eral Conferences  on  this  weighty,  this  momentous  doctrine." 
— Discipline  of  1791,  p.  103;  of  1792,  p.  108.  See  also  Disci- 
pline of  1801,  p.  114;  of  1805,  p.  loi ;  and  of  1808,  p.  99. 
Finally,  in  the  original  pamphlet  Minutes  of  1785,  1786, 
and  1787  the  name  "General  Conference"  is  applied  to 
the  yearly  Conferences  that  met  in  those  years — exclu- 
sive, in  1785,  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  This  is  the 
earliest  employment  of  the  term  in  the  official  records  of 
the  Church,  and  it  entirely  differs  from  that  which  prevailed 
after  1792.  The  term  did  not  become  univocal,  acquiring 
its  present  fixed  legal  and  historical  meaning,  until  1792. 
The  question  of  the  application  of  the  term  in  1785,  1786, 
and  1787  is  so  important  in  itself,  and  has  hitherto  seemed 
so  inexplicable,  that  I  have  designedly  omitted  all  reference 
to  it  in  this  discussion  of  the  beginning  of  General  Confer- 
ence government  in  our  Church,  that  the  following  Ap- 
pendix (VI.)  might  be  devoted  exclusively  to  it. 


APPENDIX  VI. 


THK  BALTIMORE  CONFERENCE  SYSTEM  OF  GOVERNMENT 
AND  THE  EARLIEST  OFFICIAL  USE  OF  THE  TERM 
GENERAL  CONFERENCE. 

IN  my  "Making  of  Methodism,"  Chapter  XIII.,  I  have 
previously  written  on  this  subject;  but  the  possession  of 
fresh  evidence — particularly  the  original  pamphlet  Minutes 
of  contemporary  issue  in  1785,  1786,  and  1787 — and  the 
broader  study  of  the  evidence  already  in  hand,  if  they  do 
not  constitute  a  demand,  will  at  least  afford  an  apology,  for 
a  second  attempt  to  reach,  if  possible,  definite  conclusions 
in  this  intricate  and  important  inquiry,  whose  problems, 
dimly  discerned  but  scarcely  defined  by  Stevens  and  other 
historians,  still  await  a  satisfactory  solution. 

In  1780,  the  Asburyan,  Northern,  or  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence, as  we  have  seen  (see  above,  pp.  109-120),  met  in  Bal- 
timore, while  the  "regular,"  Southern,  or  Virginia  Confer- 
ence met  at  Manakintown.  There  by  the  intercession  of 
Asbury,  Garrettson,  and  Watters,  the  brethren  were  recon- 
ciled, after  the  Fluvanna  schism,  to  the  Baltimore  or  As- 
buryan bod}^  the  union  being  consummated  in  1781.  From 
that  date  until  1787,  the  Baltimore  Conference  was  the  final 
Conference  of  every  year,  and  en-*?yed  powers  and  privi- 
leges (throughout  the  period,  I  think  the  evidence  will  war- 
rant me  in  saying)  not  accorded  any  other  body.  And  all 
of  these  sessions,  from  1780  to  1787  inclusive,  were  held,  let 
it  be  noted,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore.  This  is  the  period,  and 
this  the  phase,  of  the  government  of  American  Methodism 
which  I  desire  historically  to  investigate. 

The  Conference  of  1781,  Jesse  Lee  tells  us,  met  in  Balti- 
more on  the  24th  of  April.  "But,"  he  adds,  "previous  to 
this  a  few  preachers  on  the  Eastern  Shore  held  a  Utile  Con- 

(523) 


524      Baltimore  Conference  System  of  (government. 


ference  in  Delaware  state,  near  Choptank,  to  make  some 
arrangements  for  those  preachers  who  could  not  go  with  them, 
and  then  adjourned  (as  they  called  it)  to  Baltimore;  so  upon 
the  whole  it  was  considered  but  one  Conference."*  Jesse 
Lee's  phrases,  "little  Conference,"  "adjourned  (as  they 
called  it),"  and  "upon  the  whole,"  indicate  that  he  held 
the  preliminary  gathering  in  some  contempt;  and,  owing  to 
their  irregular  origin  in  1779  and  1780,  these  preparatory 
Conferences  were,  no  doubt,  still  viewed  with  suspicion  in 
some  quarters;  but  the  Minutes  are  unequivocal  in  their 
recognition,  saying  that  the  Conference  was  "held  at 
Choptank,  state  of  Delaware,  April  i6th,  1781,  and  ad- 
journed to  Baltimore  the  24th  of  said  month."! 

The  next  year,  1782,  Lee,  in  a  passage,  whose  impor- 
tance, in  the  absence  of  other  testimony,  is  very  great,  ex- 
plains the  governmental  relation  of  the  Southern  or  Virginia 
Conference  to  the  Northern  or  Baltimore  Conference  as  fol- 
lows: 

The  work  had  so  increased  and  spread,  that  it  was  now  found  necessarj 
to  have  a  conference  in  the  south  [the  Virginia]  every  year,  continuing  the 
conference  in  the  north  [the  Baltimore]  as  usual.  Yet  as  the  conference  in 
the  north  was  of  the  longest  standing,  and  withal  composed  of  the  oldest 
preachers,  it  was  allowed  greater  privileges  than  that  in  the  south;  espe- 
cially in  making  rules,  and  forming  regulations  for  the  societies.  Accord- 
ingly when  anything  was  agreed  to  in  the  Virginia  conference,  and  after- 
wards disapproved  of  in  the  Baltimore  conference,  it  was  dropped.  But  if 
any  rule  was  fixed  and  determined  on  at  the  Baltimore  conference,  the 
preachers  in  the  south  were  under  the  necessity  of  abiding  by  it.  The 
southern  conference  was  considered  at  that  time  as  a  convenience,  and  de- 
signed to  accommodate  the  preachers  in  that  part  of  the  work,  and  do  all 
the  business  of  a  regular  conference,  except  that  of  making  or  altering  par- 
ticular rules.J 

At  this  early  date,  1782,  it  appears  that  it  was  "the  busi- 
ness of  a  regular  conference  to  make  and  alter  particular 
rules";  a  prerogative  which  continued  after,  as  before,  the 
meeting  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  Here,  also,  we 
have  the  final  legislative  authority  fixed  in  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  while  the  Virginia  Conference  was  confined 


*  Short  History,  p.  75.    I  Ed.  of  1795,  p.  41.    {  Short  History,  pp.  78,  79. 


Baltimore  Coiiference  System  of  Government.  525 


to  a  subordinate  and  non-legislative  sphere.  If  legislation 
agreed  to  in  Virginia,  but  disapproved  at  Baltimore,  was 
"dropped,"  while  rules  fixed  and  determined  at  Baltimore 
were  binding  on  the  Virginia  preachers;  if,  in  short,  in 
Virginia  they  did  all  the  business  of  a  "regular"  Con- 
ference, except  that  of  making  and  altering  rules,  which 
was  attended  to  at  Baltimore;  then,  as  early  as  1782,  the 
Baltimore  Conference  already  sustained  to  the  Virginia  Con- 
ference a  relation  not  unlike  that  of  a  General  to  an  Annual 
Conference.  The  situation  was  somewhat  relieved  if,  as 
Dr.  L.  M.  Lee  states  in  his  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  "a  preacher 
in  one  division  possessed  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the 
other";  for,  in  that  case,  a  member  of  the  Virginia  Con- 
ference could  participate  in  the  final  passage  of  legislation 
by  attending  at  Baltimore.  We  must  not  fail  to  notice, 
moreover,  that  in  the  Minutes  the  bodies  were  still  officially 
viewed  as  one.  These  legislative  arrangements  certainly 
continued  until  the  meeting  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 
Of  the  Conference  of  1784,  the  last  before  the  meeting  of 
the  Christmas  Conference,  Jesse  Lee  says,  "It  was  consid- 
ered as  but  one  Conference,  although  they  met  first  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  then  adjourned  to  Baltimore,  where  the  business 
was  finished." 

Throughout  these  years  we  have  a  dual  session  of  the 
Conference,  the  first  in  Virginia,  preparatory,  executive, 
advisory;  the  last  in  Baltimore,  of  final  legislative  authority. 
Specimens  of  the  legislation  enacted  at  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference, from  1780  to  1784  inclusive,  much  of  it  by  no 
means  of  slight  importance,  may  be  seen  in  the  extracts  from 
the  Minutes  of  those  years  given  in  the  preceding  pages  of 
this  History.  Since  Baltimore  had  been  so  long  the  seat  of 
connectional  legislation,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  no 
other  place  was  thought  of  as  the  seat  of  the  Christ- 
mas Conference,  called  together  by  the  preachers  at  Bar- 
ratt's  Chapel,  when  Dr.  Coke  made  known  to  Mr.  As- 
bury  the  designs  of  Mr.  Wesley  for  the  organization  of 
the  Church.    Indeed,  it  is  scarcely  overbold  to  say  that  we 


526      Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government. 


shall  not  be  able  to  understand  this  body  and  its  legislation, 
in  their  complete  historical  setting,  unless  we  keep  in  mind 
this  Baltimore  Conference  system  of  government,  which 
began  in  1780 ;  which  was  not  interrupted  or  essentially  altered 
by  the  meeting  of  the  Christmas  Conference  or  its  action 
in  leaving  the  government  of  the  Church  in  ''the  Confer- 
ence"; and  which,  as  we  shall  see,  did  not  come  to  an  end 
until  1787.  In  Baltimore,  in  1782,  the  brethren  unanimously 
chose  Mr.  Asbury  "  to  act  according  to  Mr.  Wesley's  origi- 
nal appointment,  and  preside  over  the  American  Confer- 
ences and  the  whole  work";  it  was  not  unnatural  that,  in 
the  same  city,  a  little  more  than  two  years  later,  when  Mr. 
Asbury  desired  something  more  than  Mr.  Wesley's  nomina- 
tion to  support  and  protect  him,  he  secured  that  the  Christ- 
mas Conference,  called  at  his  suggestion,  should  exercise  in- 
dependent electoral  powers  before  he  entered  on  the  duties  of 
the  episcopal  office  to  which  he  had  been  designated.  When 
the  called  Conference  met  in  Baltimore  on  Christmas  eve, 
1784,  it  assembled  in  the  midst  of  the  traditions  of  the  five 
successive  annual  legislative  sessions  of  the  Conference 
which  had  been  previously  held  in  the  same  city.  Hence 
it  called  itself  simply  "a  Conference";  hence,  without 
creation  of  a  new  governing  body,  or  definition  of  its  powers, 
it  was  able  to  commit  all  the  powers  of  government  in  the 
newly  organized  Church,  both  legislative  and  electoral,  to 
"the  Conference,"  existing  and  officially  recognized  in  the 
Minutes  as  one  bod3s  whose  general  functions  had  been  long 
established  and  were  familiarly  understood,  and  which,  as 
we  shall  see,  continued  for  three  years  after  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America  to  hold 
its  final  legislative  sessions  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  as  it  had 
been  accustomed  to  do  for  five  years  preceding  that  organ- 
ization. 

Here  we  are  confronted  with  a  singular  phenomenon  in  the 
official  records  of  the  Church,  hitherto  unexplained  if  not 
inexplicable.  The  original,  contemporary  Minutes  of  1785, 
1786,  and  1787,  published  in  pamphlets  now  before  me,  an- 


Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government.  527 


nounce  themselves  on  their  title-pages  as  the  "Minutes  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America."  Moreover,  the  preliminary  notice  of  the 
Christmas  Conference — consisting  of  a  slightly  abridged  copy 
of  Mr.  Wesley's  circular  letter,  with  an  introduction  and 
concluding  note — inserted  in  the  Minutes  of  1785  in  the  col- 
lected edition  of  1795,  is  not  contained  in  the  original  Min- 
utes of  1785.*  Thus  the  term  General  Conference,  though 
entirely  absent  from  the  legislation  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, and  from  the  three  annual  editions  of  the  Discipline  of 
the  Church,  published  in  1785,  1786,  and  1787,  is  in  the 
Minutes  applied  in  the  same  sense  to  the  Conferences  of 
1785  (exclusive  of  the  Christmas  Conference),  1786,  and 
1787.  This  is  the  earliest  employment  of  the  term  "Gen- 
eral Conference"  in  the  official  records  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  America.  In  1785,  1786,  and  1787  it 
was  used  to  designate  the  Conferences  of  those  years;  the 
term  is  then  dropped  and  disappears  from  the  Minutes. 
What  is  the  explanation? 

The  only  one  I  am  able  to  offer  is  based  on  the  follow- 
ing: (i)  Until  1787,  the  final  Conference  of  each  year 
was  held  in  Baltimore;  (2)  until  that  year  the  Baltimore 
Conference  continued  to  exercise  the  final  legislative  au- 
thority of  which  Lee  gives  us  an  account  in  1782;  (3) 
after  1787,  this  final  authority  of  the  Baltimore  Conference 
was  no  longer  recognized,  but  legislation  was  effected  by 
passing  measures  around  to  all  the  sessions;  (4)  that  As- 
bury's  obvious  fondness  for  the  term  probably  led  to  its  em- 
ployment in  the  official  Minutes  from  the  Conference  of 
1785,  the  first  after  the  organization  of  the  Church,  to  the 


*The  entire  list  of  the  Superintendents,  Elders,  and  Deacons  of  the 
Church,  including  those  subsequently  ordained  as  well  as  those  ordained  at 
the  Christmas  Conference,  is  contained  in  these  Minutes;  a  fact  to  which  I 
was  formerly  inclined  to  attach  importance.  But  an  extended  examination 
of  the  records  through  a  series  of  years  shows  that  it  was  for  many  years 
the  custom  to  republish  annually  in  the  Minutes  the  entire  list  of  the  or- 
dained men  of  the  Church. 


528      Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government. 


cessation  of  these  final  legislative  sessions  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference.  That  the  final  sessions  were  held  in  Baltimore 
from  1780  to  1787  the  Minutes  attest.  That  1787  was  the 
end  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  system  of  government, 
begun  in  1780,  and  the  beginning  of  the  usage  of  passing 
legislation  around  to  all  the  sessions  of  each  year,  seems  to 
be  true  from  the  following  history. 

1.  After  the  dissolution  of  the  Christmas  Conference, 
three  Conferences,  or  sessions  of  the  one  Conference,  met 
in  1785,  as  appointed  by  the  regular  spring  Conference  of 
1784,  the  last  session,  as  usual,  being  held  in  Baltimore, 
June  I,  1785.  Here  as  Coke  informs  us  (Journal,  June  i, 
1785)  the  minute  of  the  Christmas  Conference  concerning 
slavery  was  suspended;  the  Baltimore  Conference,  as  far  as 
I  can  gather  from  the  records,  exercising  as  heretofore  the 
final  legislative  authority  of  the  year,  though  the  subject  had 
received  previous  consideration  in  Virginia.  In  1785,  as 
Lee  expressly  records,  there  was  no  adjournment  from 
North  Carolina  to  Virginia,  or  from  Virginia  to  Baltimore : 
he  makes  the  cessation  of  the  usual  adjournment  from  Con- 
ference to  Conference  of  the  same  year  the  occasion  of  num- 
bering the  several  sessions  of  a  year  as  distinct  Conferences, 
though  the  annual  Discipline  of  the  Church,  down  to  and 
including  the  edition  of  1791,  still  knows  only  "  the  Confer- 
ence "  as  the  regular  governmental  body. 

2.  I  know  of  no  clear  record  of  the  exercise  of  final  au- 
thority by  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  1786;  but  there  is 
wholly  satisfactory  evidence  that  this  authority  was  still  ex- 
ercised in  1787.  In  1787,  the  South  Carolina  Conference, 
at  its  first  session,  with  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  presiding, 
held  an  episcopal  election,  and  confirmed  Mr.  Wesley's 
nomination  of  Whatcoat  to  the  episcopacy.  At  the  Virginia 
Conference  following,  serious  objection  to  Whatcoat  was 
raised  by  James  O' Kelly,  and  it  was  agreed  that  the  nomi- 
nation should  be  finally  disposed  of  at  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference, "on  condition,"  as  Nicholas  Snethen  sa^vs,  "that 
the  Virginia  Conference  might  send  a  deputy  to  explain  their 


Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government.  529 


sentiments."  At  Baltimore,  according  to  Snethen,  in  his 
Reply  to  Mr.  O'Kelly's  Apology,  "a  vote  was  taken  that 
Richard  Whatcoat  should  not  be  ordained  Superintendent, 
and  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  should  for  the  future  be  left 
off  the  American  Minutes."  (See  above,  p.  233.)  The 
same  Baltimore  Conference  restrained  Thomas  Coke  from 
the  exercise  of  episcopal  authority  when  absent  from  the 
United  States,  and  the  first  question  in  the  "Minutes  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America,  for  the  year,  1787,"  is  "Who  are  the  Superintend- 
ents of  our  Church  for  the  United  States?"  and  the  answer 
is  "Thomas  Coke  (when  present  in  the  States)  and  Francis 
Asbury."  * 

3.  We  are  now  in  a  better  position  to  answer  the  question, 
Was  the  Conference  of  1787  a  General  Conference?  Mr. 
Wesley  had  evidently  desired  that  Mr.  Whatcoat's  nomina- 
tion to  the  episcopacy  should  be  passed  upon  by  all  the 
preachers.  The  attempt  to  comply  with  his  wishes  was 
begun  at  the  South  Carolina  Conference.  It  broke  down  in 
Virginia,  through  James  O'Kelly's  opposition.  It  was  then 
determined  to  leave  the  whole  matter  with  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  which,  notwithstanding  the  favorable  action  in 
South  Carolina,  voted  (i)  that  Mr.  Whatcoat  should  not  be 
ordained;  (2)  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  should  be  left  off 
the  American  Minutes,  and  that  the  resolution  of  submission 
to  him  should  be  rescinded;  and  (3)  that  Dr.  Coke  should 
not  exercise  his  episcopal  functions  when  absent  from  the 
United  States.  The  body  that  did  all  these  things  was  not 
"  a  General  Conference  of  all  our  preachers  in  the  United 
States,"  such  as  Mr.  Wesley  had  directed  to  be  called;  but 
the  time  and  place  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  were 
changed  by  Dr.  Coke  to  the  time  and  place  fixed  by  Mr. 
Wesley  for  the  meeting  of  the  proposed  "General  Confer- 
ence of  all  the  preachers"  (see  above,  pp.  225,  226);  and 
the  results  of  its  action  appear  in  part  in  an  oflScial  record 
entitled  "  The  Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 


♦Original  pamphlet  Minutes,  1787,  p.  3. 


530      Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government. 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  for  the  year, 
1787."  Perhaps  the  reason  why  no  attempt  seems  to 
have  been  made  to  comply  literally  with  Mr.  Wesley's 
wishes  was  that  a  body  of  competent  powers  apparently 
styled  in  1785  and  1786  a  "General  Conference"  would 
assemble  in  due  course;  and,  after  the  attempt  substantially 
to  comply  with  Mr.  Wesley's  wishes  had  begun  in  South 
Carolina,  and  had  broken  down  in  Virginia,  it  was  resolved 
to  allow  this  Conference  of  final  authority  to  dispose  of  the 
matter. 

4.  In  1785  the  number  of  Conference  sessions  annually 
held  was  increased,  for  the  first  time,  to  three;  three  ses- 
sions were  held  annually  in  1785,  1786,  and  1787,  the  Balti- 
more session  in  every  instance  being  the  last.  In  1788,  six 
sessions  were  appointed;  in  1789,  eleven;  in  1790, fourteen ; 
and  after  1787  the  Baltimore  session  is  no  longer  the  last, 
falling  indiscriminately,  as  to  time,  in  the  list.  The  use 
of  the  term  General  Conference  in  the  Minutes,  therefore, 
coincides,  as  to  its  beginning,  with  the  expansion  of  the 
Conference  sessions,  after  the  organization  of  the  Church, 
to  three  in  the  year ;  continues  during  the  period  when  the 
final  session  of  the  three  was  held  in  the  city  of  Baltimore ; 
and  is  abandoned  when  the  sessions  are  expanded  to  an  in- 
definite number,  and  the  Baltimore  Conference  is  no  longer 
the  last  Conference  of  the  year  and  no  longer  exercises  final 
authority.  In  this  way  the  Baltimore  Conference  seems  to 
have  forfeited  the  primacy  which  it  had  so  long  enjoyed. 
Probably  the  attempt  to  vote  on  Mr.  Whatcoat's  name  at  all 
the  Conferences,  which  is  the  first  recorded  instance  of  the 
kind  of  which  I  have  found  evidence,  suggested  the  expedi- 
ency of  that  plan  for  legislation,  and  hastened  the  overthrow 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference  system  of  government  in  Amer- 
ican Methodism. 

5.  I  know  of  no  record  of  the  final  decision  of  any  ques- 
tion by  the  Baltimore  Conference  after  1787.  In  1789 
Bishop  Coke  passed  around  to  all  the  Conferences  the 
measures  for  the  restoration  of  Mr.  Wesley's  name  to  the 


Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government.  531 


Minutes  and  the  Discipline.*  In  1789  and  1790  measures 
relating  to  the  Council  were  passed  around  by  Bishop  As- 
bury  to  all  the  Conferences.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
common,  if  not  universal,  method  of  legislation  from  1788 
to  1792,  when  the  General  Conference  proper,  as  we  now 
know  it,  was  organized.  At  least  (i)  there  is  no  record 
known  to  me  of  final  action  by  the  Baltimore  Conference 
alone  after  1787  ;  and  (2)  the  instances  of  securing  legisla- 
tion by  passing  measures  around  to  all  Conferences  between 
1788  and  1792  seem  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  this  was 
the  recognized  and  general  method. 

These  considerations,  taken  together,  appear  to  blaze  a 
path  through  a  jungle  in  which  previous  historians,  includ- 
ing Stevens,  have  lost  their  way;  and  to  explain  the  use  of 
the  term  "General  Conference"  in  the  Minutes  of  1785, 
1786,  and  1787. t 

*See  above,  pp.  241,  242. 

■fin  "The  Making  of  Methodism"  (pp.  154,  155,  and  especially  footnote 
on  the  latter  page),  a  close  criticism,  based  on  Jesse  Lee  and  on  internal 
evidence,  of  the  record  of  the  Christmas  Conference  contained  in  the  Min- 
utes of  1795,  is  instituted  to  show  that  that  record  was  almost  certainly  ab- 
sent from  the  Minutes  of  1785.  Access  to  the  original  pamphlet  Minutes  of 
1785  has  shown  the  absence  of  the  record  in  question,  and  has  proved  the 
soundness  of  my  reasoning.  Consequently  I  have  been  able  greatly  to  sim- 
plify the  discussion  of  the  "Baltimore  System"  in  the  text,  by  the  elimina- 
tion of  the  subsidiary  arguments  which  were  necessary  to  show  the  char- 
acter and  value  of  the  only  evidence  then  available. 

In  the  text  the  beginning  of  the  "  Baltimore  Conference  system  "  is  dated 
from  1780.  It  is  immaterial  to  the  argument  whether  it  be  dated  from  1780 
or  1781.  In  1780  the  Baltimore  Conference  did  not  follcnv  the  Conference 
at  Manakintown;  but  the  extensive  legislation  of  the  Baltimore  Conference 
is  embodied  in  the  Minutes  (see  above,  pp.  iii,  112),  while  the  Manakintown 
Minutes  were  suppressed  (see  above,  p.  112);  and  the  next  year  the  preach- 
ers that  met  there  were  reconciled  to  the  Asburyan  body,  t.  e.,  the  Baltimore 
Conference. 


APPENDIX  VII. 


THE  FIRST  DISCIPLINE  AND  THE  LARGE  MINUTES  OF  1780. 

IN  the  Large  Minutes  of  1780  we  have  the  last  edition  pub- 
lished before  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America.  It  is  the  document  used  by  Coke  and 
Asbury  as  the  basis  of  their  preparation  of  the  Discipline 
adopted  by  the  Christmas  Conference.  By  this  reproduc- 
tion, in  parallel  columns,  of  the  Large  Minutes  of  1780  and 
of  the  official  Minutes  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  as  put 
to  press  by  Dr.  Coke,  one  of  the  presidents  of  the  Confer- 
ence, at  Philadelphia,  between  January  8  and  January  19, 
1785,  the  reader  is  able  to  see  the  exact  relation  of  the  reg- 
imen of  American  Methodism  at  its  organization  to  the  ex- 
isting constitution  of  British  Methodism,  and  to  measure 
exactly  the  degree  of  divergence  therefrom.  As  the  Sun- 
day Service,  the  circular  letter,  and  Dr.  Coke's  ordination 
parchment  embody  Mr.  Wesley's  contribution  to  the  organ- 
ization of  the  new  Church — though  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference also  passed  independently  upon  all  these;  so  this 
comparison  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Christmas  Conference, 
or  the  First  Discipline,  with  the  Large  Minutes  of  1780 
measures  accurately  the  contribution  made  by  the  enact- 
ments of  the  Christmas  Conference.  Dr.  Robert  Emory, 
in  his  History  of  the  Discipline,  starts  off  on  the  wrong 
foot,  inasmuch  as  he  institutes  a  comparison  between  the 
First  Discipline  and  the  Large  Minutes  of  1789,  printed  in 
1 791,  which  seems  to  have  been  his  only  copy.  I  count 
myself  fortunate  in  possessing  a  copy  of  the  Large  Minutes 
of  1780,  and  in  being  now  able  to  fulfill  a  promise  (in  "The 
Making  of  Methodism,"  p.  138,  footnote)  to  publish  this  ex- 
hibit in  parallel  columns.  This  Appendix  also  has  value  as 
a  reprint  of  the  First  Discipline  and  of  the  Large  Minutes. 
(532) 


MINUTES 

Or  SEVERAL  CONVERSATIONS 

BETWEXN 

Th«  Riv.  THOMAS  C  O  K  B.  LL.  D. 
Thi  Ret.   FRANCIS  ASBURY 

AND  OTHERi, 

AT  A  CONFERENCE,  begun 
IK  Baltimore,  in  the  State  or  Maryland, 
ON  Monday,  the  17M.  or  December. 
IN  the  Year  1784. 
Composing  a  FORM  of  DISCIPLINE 

I-OR  THE  MiNItTEKS,  PREACHER!  AND 

OTHER  Members  of  the  Methodut 
EriicorAL  Church  in 

AMERICA. 

PHILADELPHIA  : 
Printed  bt  CHARLES  CIST,  in  Arch- 
Strkit,  the  Corner  of  Fodrth-Street. 


MINUTES 

or  lETERAL 

CONVERSATIONS 

BITWSSN 

The  REVEREND  Mf. 

JOHN  and  CHARLES  WESLEY, 

AND  OTHERS. 
From  the  Tear  1744,  to  the  Year  1780. 


L    O  N  D    O  N: 
Printed  bj  3   PARAMORE.  *t  tlia  PsnnliT,  l(Mrfl>Il<. 

(533) 


534  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


MINUTES,  &C. 


IT  is  desired,  That  all  Things  be 
considered  as  in  the  immediate 
Presence  of  God: 

That  everj  Person  speak  freely 
whatever  is  in  his  Heart. 

Question  i.  How  may  we  best  im- 
prove the  Time  of  our  Conferences? 

Answer  i.  While  we  are  convers- 
ing, let  us  have  an  especial  Care,  to 
set  God  always  before  us. 

2.  In  the  intermediate  Hours,  let 
us  redeem  all  the  Time  we  can  for 
private  Exercises: 

3.  Therein  let  us  give  ourselves  to 
Prayer  for  one  another,  and  for  a 
Blessing  on  our  Labour. 


Q.  2.  What  can  be  done  in  order  to 
the  future  Union  of  the  Methodists.' 

A.  During  the  Life  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves 
his  Sons  in  the  Gospel,  ready  in  Mat- 
ters belonging  to  Church-Govern- 
ment, to  obey  his  Commands.  And 
we  do  engage  after  his  Death,  to  do 
every  Thing  that  we  judge  consistent 
with  the  Cause  of  Religion  in  Atner- 
icaand  the  political  Interests  of  these 
States,  to  preserve  and  promote  our 
Union  with  the  Methodists  in  Europe. 

Q.  3.  As  the  Ecclesiastical  as  well 
as  Civil  Affairs  of  these  United  States 
have  passed  through  a  very  consid- 
erable Change  by  the  Revolution, 
what  Plan  of  Church-Government 
shall  we  hereafter  pursue? 


MINUTES,  &c. 
From  the  Year  1744,  to  the 
Year  1780. 

IT  is  desired.  That  all  things  be  con- 
sidered as  in  the  immediate  pres- 
ence of  God: 

That  every  person  speak  freely 
whatever  is  in  his  heart. 

Q.  I.  How  may  we  best  improve 
the  time  of  this  Conference? 

A.  I.  While  we  are  conversing,  let 
us  have  an  especial  care,  to  set  God 
always  before  us. 

2.  In  the  intermediate  hours,  let  us 
redeem  all  the  time  we  can  for  private 
exercises: 

3.  Therein  let  us  give  ourselves  to 
prayer  for  one  another,  and  for  a  bless- 
ing on  this  our  labour. 

Q.  2.  Have  our  Conferences  been 
as  useful  as  they  might  have  been? 

A.  No:  we  have  been  continually 
straitened  for  time.  Hence,  scarce 
any  thing  has  been  searched  to  the 
bottom.  To  remedy  this,  let  every 
Conference  last  nine  days,  conclud- 
ing on  Wednesday  in  the  second 
week. 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Mi?udes.  535 


A.  We  will  form  ourselves  into  an 
Episcopal  Church  under  the  Direction 
of  Superintendents,  Elders,  Deacons 
and  Helpers,  according  to  the  Forms 
of  Ordination  annexed  to  our  Litur- 
gy, and  the  Form  of  Discipline  6et 
forth  in  these  Minutes. 

Q.  4.  What  may  we  reasonably 
believe  to  be  God's  Design  in  rais- 
ing up  the  Preachers  called  Metho- 
dists f 

A.  To  reform  the  Continent,  and  to 
spread  scriptural  Holiness  over  these 
Lands. 

Q.  5.  What  was  the  Rise  of  Meth- 
odism, so  called  i 

A.  In  1729,  two  young  Men,  read- 
ing the  Bible,  saw  they  could  not  be 
saved  without  Holiness,  followed  aft- 
er it,  and  incited  others  so  to  do.  In 
1737,  they  saw  Holiness  comes  by 
Faith.  They  saw  likewise,  that  Men 
are  justified,  before  they  are  sancti- 
fied: but  still  Holiness  was  their 
Point.  God  then  thrust  them  out, 
utterly  against  their  Will,  to  raise  an 
holy  People.  When  Satan  could  no 
otherwise  hinder  this,  he  threw  Cal- 
vinism in  the  way;  and  then  Antino- 
mianism,  which  strikes  directly  at  the 
Root  of  all  Holiness. 

Q.  6.  Is  it  advisable  for  us  to 
preach  in  as  many  Places  as  we  can, 
without  forming  any  Societies.? 

A.  By  no  Means ;  we  have  made 
the  Trial  in  various  Places:  and  that 
for  a  considerable  Time.  Butall  the 
Seed  has  fallen  as  by  the  Way-side. 
There  is  scarce  any  Fruit  remaining. 

Q.  7.  Where  should  we  endeavour 
to  preach  most? 

A.  I.  Where  there  is  the  greatest 
Number  of  quiet  and  willing  Hearers: 
2.  Where  there  is  most  Fruit. 

Q.  8.  Is  Field-preaching  unlaw- 
ful? 

A.  We  conceive  not.    We  do  not 


Q.  3.  What  may  we  reasonably 

believe  to  be  God's  design,  in  rais- 
ing up  the  Preachers  called  Metho- 
dists? 

A.  To  reform  the  Nation,  particu- 
larly the  Church ;  and  to  spread  scrip- 
tural holiness  over  the  land. 

Q.  4.  What  was  the  rise  of  Meth- 
odism, so  called? 

A.  In  1729,  two  young  Men,  read- 
ing the  Bible,  saw  they  could  not  be 
saved  without  holiness,  followed  after 
it,  and  incited  others  so  to  do.  In  1737 
they  saw  holiness  comes  by  faith. 
They  saw  likewise,  that  men  are  jus- 
tified, before  they  are  sanctified:  but 
still  holiness  was  their  point. 

God  then  thrust  them  out,  utterly 
against  their  will,  to  raise  an  holy  peo- 
ple. When  Satan  could  no  otherwise 
hinder  this,  he  threw  Calvinism  in  the 
way;  and  then  Antinomianism,  which 
strikes  directly  at  the  root  of  all  holi- 
ness. 

Q.  5.  Is  it  advisable  for  us  to  preach 
in  as  many  places  as  we  can,  without 
forming  any  Societies? 

A.  By  no  means  ;  we  have  made  the 
trial  in  various  places:  and  that  for  a 
considerable  time.  But  all  the  seed 
has  fallen  as  by  the  way-side.  There 
is  scarce  any  fruit  remaining. 

Q.  6.  Where  should  we  endeavour 
to  preach  most? 

A.  I.  Where  there  is  the  greatest 
number  of  quiet  and  willing  hearers; 
2.  Where  there  is  most  fruit. 

Q.  7,  Is  field-preaching  unlaw- 
ful? 

A.  We  conceive  not.    We  do  not 


536  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


know  that  it  is  contrary  to  any  Law 
either  of  God  or  Man. 

Q.  9.  Have  we  not  used  it  too 
sparingly  ? 

A.  It  seems  we  have:  i.  Because 
our  Call  is  to  save  that  which  is  lost. 
Now  we  cannot  expect  them  to  seek 
«>:.  Therefore  we  should  go  and 
seek  them.  2.  Because  we  are  particu- 
larly called,  by  ffoing-  into  the  High- 
ways and  Hedges,  to  compel  them  to 
come  in.  3.  Because  the  Reason 
against  it  is  not  good,  "The  House 
will  holdall  that  come."  The  House 
may  hold  all  that  to  the  House; 
but  not  all  that  would  come  to  the 
Field. 

The  greatest  Hindrance  to  this  you 
are  to  expect  from  rich,  or  cowardly, 
or  laz}'  Methodists.  But  regard  them 
not,  neither  Stewards,  Leaders,  nor 
People.  Whenever  the  Weather  will 
permit,  go  out  in  God's  Name  into 
the  most  public  Places,  and  call  all  to 
repent  and  believe  the  Gospel:  Ev- 
ery Sunday,  in  particular:  especially 
where  there  are  old  Societies,  lest 
they  settle  upon  their  Lees. 


Q.  10.  Ought  we  not  diligently  to 
observe,  in  what  Places  God  is 
pleased  at  any  Time  to  pour  out  his 
Spirit  more  abundantly  ? 

A.  We  ought,  and  at  that  Time  to 
send  more  Labourers  than  usual  into 
that  Part  of  the  Harvest. 


Q.  II.  How  often  shall  we  permit 


know  that  it  is  contrary  to  any  law 
either  of  God  or  man. 

Q.  8.  Have  we  not  used  it  too  spar- 
ingly ? 

A.  It  seems  we  have:  i.  Because 
ouY  Call  is,  to  save  that  which  is  lost. 
Now  we  cannot  expect  them  to  seek 
us.  Therefore  we  should  go  and  seek 
them.  2.  Because  we  are  particularly 
called,  by  going  into  the  high-ways  and 
hedges,  (which  none  else  will  do,)  to 
compel  them  to  come  in.  3.  Because  that 
reason  against  it  is  not  good,  "The 
house  will  hold  all  that  come."  The 
house  may  hold  all  that  come  to  the 
house ;  but  not  all  that  would  come  to 
the  field. 

The  greatest  hindrance  to  this  you 
are  to  expect  from  rich,  or  cowardly, 
or  lazy  Methodists.  But  regard  them 
not,  neither  Stewards,  Leaders,  nor 
People.  Whenever  the  weather  will 
permit,  go  out  in  God's  name  into  the 
most  public  places,  and  call  all  to 
repent  and  believe  the  gospel:  ev- 
ery Sunday,  in  particular:  especially 
where  there  are  old  Societies,  lest  they 
settle  upon  their  lees. 

The  Stewards  will  frequently  op- 
pose this,  lest  they  lose  their  usual 
collection.  But  this  is  not  a  sufficient 
reason  against  it.  Shall  we  barter 
souls  for  money? 

Q.  9.  Ought  we  not  diligently  to  ob- 
serve, in  what  places  God  is  pleased 
at  any  time  to  pour  out  his  Spirit  more 
abundantly  ? 

A.  We  ought,  and  at  that  time  to 
send  more  Labourers  than  usual  into 
that  part  of  the  harvest. 

But  whence  shall  we  have  them? 
I.  So  far  as  we  can  afford  it,  we  will 
keep  a  reserve  of  Preachers  at  Kings- 
wood:  2.  Let  an  exact  List  be  kept  of 
those  who  are  proposed  for  trial,  but 
not  accepted. 

Q.  10.  How  often  shall  we  permit 


The  First  Disciflitie     and     The  Large  Minutes.  537 


Strangers  to  be  present  at  the  Meet- 
ing of  the  Society? 

A.  At  every  other  Meeting  of  the 
Society  in  every  Place,  let  no  Stranger 
be  admitted.  At  other  Times  they 
may ;  but  the  same  Person  not  above 
twice  or  thrice.  In  order  to  this,  see 
that  all  in  every  Place  shev^  their 
Tickets  before  they  come  in.  If  the 
Stewards  and  Leaders  are  not  exact 
herein,  employ  others  that  have  more 
Resolution. 

Q.  12.  How  often  shall  we  permit 
Strangers  to  be  present  at  our  Love- 
Feasts? 

A.  Let  them  be  admitted  with  the 
utmost  Caution  ;  and  the  same  Person 
on  no  account  above  twice,  unless  he 
becomes  a  Member. 

Q.  13.  How  may  the  Leaders  of 
Classes  be  made  more  useful? 

A.  I.  Let  each  of  them  be  diligent- 
ly examined  concerning  his  Method 
of  meeting  a  Class. 

Let  this  be  done  with  all  possible 
Exactness  at  the  Quarterly  Visitation. 
And  in  order  to  this,  allow  sufficient 
Time  for  the  Visiting  of  each  So- 
ciety. 

2.  Let  each  Leader  carefully  in- 
quire how  every  Soul  in  his  Class 
prospers.  Not  only  how  each  Per- 
son observes  the  outward  Rules,  but 
how  he  grows  in  the  Knowledge  and 
Love  of  God. 

3.  Let  the  Leaders  converse  with 
the  Assistant  frequently  and  freely. 

Q.  14.  Can  any  Thing  farther  be 
done  in  order  to  make  the  Meetings 
of  the  Classes  lively  and  profitable? 

A.  I.  Change  improper  Leaders. 

2.  Let  the  Leaders  frequently  meet 
each  other's  Classes. 

3.  Let  us  observe  which  Leaders 
are  the  most  useful.  And  let  these 
meet  the  other  Classes  as  often  as 
possible. 


strangers  to  be  present  at  the  meeting 
of  the  Society  ? 

A.  At  every  other  meeting  of  the 
Society  in  every  place,  let  no  stranger 
be  admitted.  At  other  times  they 
may  ;  but  the  same  person  not  above 
twice  or  thrice.  In  order  to  this,  see 
that  all  in  every  place  shew  their 
Tickets  before  they  come  in.  If  the 
Stewards  and  Leaders  are  not  exact 
herein,  employ  others  that  have  more 
resolution. 


Q.  II.  How  may  the  Leaders  of 
Classes  be  made  more  useful? 

A.  I.  Let  each  of  them  be  diligent- 
ly examined  concerning  his  method 
of  meeting  a  Class? 

Let  this  be  done  with  all  possible 
exactness  at  the  next  Quarterly  Visi- 
tation. And  in  order  to  this,  allow 
sufficient  time  for  the  visiting  of  each 
Society. 

2.  Let  each  Leader  carefully  in- 
quire how  every  soul  in  his  Class 
prospers.  Not  only  how  each  per- 
son observes  the  outward  Rules,  but 
how  he  grows  in  the  Knowledge  and 
Love  of  God. 

3.  Let  the  Leaders  converse  with 
the  Assistant  frequently  and  freely. 

Q.  12.  Can  any  thing  farther  be 
done,  in  order  to  make  the  meetings 
of  the  Classes  lively  and  profitable? 

A.  I.  Change  improper  Leaders: 

2.  Let  the  Leaders  frequently  meet 
each  other's  Classes. 

3.  Let  us  observe,  which  Leaders 
are  the  most  useful.  And  let  these 
meet  the  other  Classes  as  often  as 
possible. 


538  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


4.  See  that  all  the  Leaders  be  not 
onl/  Men  of  sound  Judgment,  but 
Men  truly  devoted  to  God. 

Q.  15.  How  can  we  farther  assist 
those  under  our  Care? 

A.  I.  By  meeting  the  married  Men 
and  Women  together,  the  first  Sun- 
day after  the  Quarterly  Meeting ;  the 
single  Men  and  Women  apart,  on  the 
two  following;  in  all  the  large  So- 
cieties. 

2.  By  instructing  them  at  their  own 
Houses.  What  unspeakable  Need  is 
there  of  this?  The  World  say  "The 
Methodists  are  no  better  than  other 
People."  This  is  not  true.  But  it  is 
nearer  the  Truth  than  we  are  willing 
to  believe. 

For  I.  Personal  Religion  either  to- 
ward God  or  Man,  is  amazingly  su- 
perficial among  us. 

We  can  but  just  touch  on  a  few 
Generals.  How  little  Faith  is  there 
among  us?  How  little  Communion 
with  God?  How  little  living  in 
Heaven,  walking  in  Eternity,  Dead- 
ness  to  every  Creature?  How  much 
Love  of  the  World?  Desire  of  Pleas- 
ure, of  Ease,  of  Praise,  of  getting 
Money  ? 

How  little  brotherly  Love?  What 
continual  Judging  one  another? 
What  Gossipping,  Evil  -  speaking, 
Tale-bearing?  What  Want  of  moral 
Honesty?  To  instance  only  one  or 
two  Particulars : 

Who  does  as  he  would  be  done  by, 
in  buying  and  selling?  Particularly 
in  selling  Horses?  Write  him  Knave 
that  does  not.  And  the  Methodist- 
Knave  is  the  worst  of  all  Knaves. 

2.  Family-Religion  is  shameful- 
ly wanting,  and  almost  in  every 
Branch. 

And  the  Methodists  in  general  will 
be  little  the  better,  till  we  take  quite 
another  Course  with  them.  For  what 


4.  See  that  all  the  Leaders  be  not 
only  men  of  sound  judgment,  but 
men  truly  devoted  to  God. 

Q.  13.  How  can  we  farther  assist 
those  under  our  care? 

A.  I.  By  meeting  the  married  men 
and  women  together,  the  first  Sun- 
day after  the  Visitation;  the  single 
men  and  women  apart,  on  the 
two  following;  in  all  the  large  So- 
cieties: 

2.  By  instructing  them  at  their  own 
houses.  What  unspeakable  need  is 
there  of  this  ?  The  World  say,  "  The 
Methodists  are  no  better  than  other 
people."  This  is  not  true.  But  it  is 
nearer  the  truth,  than  we  are  willing 
to  believe. 

For  I.  Personal  Religion  either  to- 
ward God  or  man,  is  amazingly  super- 
ficial among  us. 

I  can  but  just  touch  on  a  few 
generals.  How  little  Faith  is  there 
among  us?  How  little  Communion 
with  God?  How  little  living  in 
Heaven,  walking  in  Eternity,  Dead- 
ness  to  every  Creature?  How  much 
Love  of  the  World?  Desire  of  Pleas- 
ure, of  Ease,  of  Praise,  of  getting 
Money  ? 

How  little  brotherly  Love?  What 
continual  judgingone  another?  What 
Gossipping,  Evil-speaking,  Tale-bear- 
ing? What  want  of  moral  Honesty? 
To  instance  only  in  one  or  two  partic- 
ulars: 

Who  does  as  he  would  be  done  by, 
in  buying  and  selling?  Particularly 
in  selling  Horses?  Write  him  knave 
that  does  not.  And  the  Methodist 
knave  is  the  worst  of  all  knaves. 

2.  Family  Religion  is  shameful- 
ly wanting,  and  almost  in  every 
branch. 

And  the  Methodists  in  general  will 
be  little  the  better,  till  we  take  quite 
another  course  with  them.    For  what 


The  First  Discipline     a7id     The  Large  Afinutes.  539 


avails  Public  Preaching  alone,  though 
we  could  preach  like  Angels? 

We  must,  jea,  every  Travelling- 
Preacher  must  instruct  them  from 
House  to  House.  Till  this  is  done, 
and  that  in  good  earnest,  the  Metho- 
dists will  be  little  better  than  other 
People. 

Our  Religion  is  not  deep,  univer- 
,  sal,  uniform;  but  superficial,  partial, 
uneven.  It  will  be  so,  till  we  spend 
half  as  much  Time  {nthis  Vistting;a.6 
we  now  do  in  Talking  uselessly. 

Can  we  find  a  better  Method  of  do- 
ing this  than  Mr.  Baxter's?  If  not, 
let  us  adopt  it  without  delay.  His 
whole  Tract,  intitled  Gildas  Salvianus, 
is  well  worth  a  careful  Perusal. 
Speaking  of  this  Visiting  from  House 
to  House,  he  says,  (p.  351.) 

"We  shall  find  many  Hindrances, 
both  in  ourselves  and  in  the  Peo- 
pie. 

1.  In  ourselves,  there  is  much  Dul- 
ness  and  Laziness,  so  that  there  will 
be  much  ado  to  get  us  to  be  faithful 
in  the  Work. 

2.  We  have  a  base,  man-pleasing 
Temper,  so  that  we  let  Men  perish, 
rather  than  lose  their  Love;  we  let 
them  go  quietly  to  Hell,  lest  we 
should  anger  them. 

3.  Some  of  us  have  also  a  foolish 
Bashfulness.  We  know  not  how  to 
begin,  and  blush  to  contradict  the 
Devil. 

4.  But  the  greatest  Hindrance  is 
Weakness  of  Faith.  Our  whole  Mo- 
tion is  weak,  because  the  Spring  of  it 
is  weak. 

5.  Lastly,  We  are  unskilful  in  the 
Work.  How  few  know  how  to  deal 
with  Men,  so  as  to  get  within  them, 
and  suit  all  our  Discourse  to  their 
several  Conditions  and  Tempers:  To 
chuse  the  fittest  Subjects,  and  to  fol- 
low them  with  a  holy  Mixture  of 


avails  Public  Preaching-  alone,  though 
we  could  preach  like  Angels.' 

We  must,  yea  every  travelling 
Preacher,  must  instruct  them  from 
house  to  house.  Till  this  is  done, 
and  that  in  good  earnest,  the  Metho- 
dists will  be  little  better  than  other 
people. 

Our  Religion  is  not  deep,  universal, 
uniform;  but  superficial,  partial,  un- 
even. It  will  be  so,  till  we  spend  half 
as  much  time  in  this  visiting,  as  we 
now  do  in  talking  uselessly. 

Can  we  find  a  better  method  of  do- 
ing this  than  Mr.  Baxter's!  If  not  let 
us  adopt  it  without  delay.  His  whole 
tract,  intitled  Gildas  Salvianus,  is  well 
worth  a  careful  perusal.  A  short  Ex- 
tract from  it  I  will  subjoin.  Speaking 
of  this  visiting  from  house  to  house, 
he  says,  (p.  351.) 

"  We  shall  find  many  hindrances, 
both  in  ourselves,  and  in  the  people. 

1.  In  ourselves  there  is  much  dul- 
ness  and  laziness:  so  that  there  will 
be  much  ado  to  get  us  to  be  faithful 
in  the  work: 

2.  We  have  a  base,  man-pleasing 
temper,  so  that  we  let  men  perish, 
rather  than  lose  their  love;  we  let 
them  go  quietly  to  Hell,  lest  we  should 
anger  them: 

3.  Some  of  us  have  also  a  foolish 
Bashfulness.  We  know  not  how  to 
begin,  and  blush  to  contradict  the 
Devil. 

4.  But  the  greatest  hindrance  is, 
weakness  of  faith.  Our  whole  mo- 
tion is  weak,  because  the  spring  of  it 
is  weak. 

5.  Lastly,  we  are  unskilful  in  the 
work.  How  few  know,  how  to  deal 
with  men,  so  as  to  get  within  them, 
and  suit  all  our  discourse  to  their  sev- 
eral conditions  and  tempers  :  to  chuse 
the  fittest  subjects,  and  follow  them 
with  an  holy  mixture  of  Seriousness, 


540  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


Seriousness,  and  Terror,  and  Love 
and  Meekness? 


But  undoubtedly  this  private  Ap- 
plication is  implied  in  tiiose  solemn 
Words  of  the  Apostle,  /  charge  thee 
before  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  shall  judge  the  ^uick  and  Dead  at 


and  Terror,  and  Love,  and  Meek- 
ness? 

And  we  have  many  difficulties  to 
grapple  with  in  our  people. 

1.  Too  many  of  them  will  be  un- 
willing to  be  taught,  till  we  conquer 
their  perverseness,  by  the  force  of  rea- 
son, and  the  power  of  love. 

2.  And  many  are  so  dull,  that  they 
will  shun  being  taught  for  fear  of 
shewing  their  dulness.  And  indeed 
you  will  find  it  extremely  hard,  to 
make  them  understand  the  very  plain- 
est points. 

3.  And  it  is  still  harder,  to  fix  things 
on  their  hearts,  without  which  all  our 
labour  is  lost.  If  you  have  not  there- 
fore great  seriousness  and  fervency, 
what  good  can  you  expect?  And  aft- 
er all,  it  is  grace  alone  that  must  do 
the  work. 

4.  And  when  we  have  some  impres- 
sions on  their  hearts,  if  we  look  not 
after  them,  they  will  soon  die  away. 

But  as  great  as  this  labour  of  private 
instruction  is,  it  is  absolutely  necessa- 
ry. Forafterallour  Preaching,  many 
of  our  people  are  almost  as  ignorant, 
as  if  they  had  never  heard  the  Gospel. 
I  speak  as  plain  as  I  can:  yet  I  fre- 
quently meet  with  those  who  have 
been  my  hearers  many  years,  who 
know  not  whether  Christ  be  God  or 
Man?  And  how  few  are  there,  that 
know  the  nature  of  Repentance,  Faith, 
and  Holiness?  Most  of  them  have  a 
sort  of  confidence,  that  God  will  save 
them,  while  the  world  has  their  hearts. 
I  have  found  by  experience,  that  one 
of  these  has  learned  more  from  one 
hour's  close  discourse  than  from  ten 
years'  public  preaching. 

And  undoubtedly  this  private  ap- 
plication is  implied  in  those  solemn 
words  of  the  Apostle.  /  charge  thee 
before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
■who  shall  Judge  the  quick  and  dead  at 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  541 


his  Appearing,  preach  the  Word,  be  in- 
stant in  Season,  out  of  Season  :  reprove, 
rtbuke,  exhort,  with  all  Long-suffer- 
ing. 

O  Brethren,  if  we  could  but  set 
this  Work  on  foot  in  all  our  Societies, 
and  prosecute  it  zealously,  what  Glory 
would  redound  to  God?  If  the  com- 
mon Luke-warmness  were  banished, 
and  every  Shop  and  every  House 
busied  in  speaking  of  the  Word  and 
Works  of  God,  surely  God  would 
dwell  in  our  Habitations,  and  make 
us  his  Delight. 

And  this  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  Welfare  of  our  People,  many  of 
whom  neither  believe  nor  repent  to 
this  Day.  Look  round  and  see  how 
many  of  them  are  still  in  apparent 
Danger  of  Damnation.  And  how- 
can  you  walk,  and  talk,  and  be  mer- 
ry with  such  People,  when  you  know 
their  Case?  Methinks  when  you  look 
them  in  the  Face,  you  should  break 
forth  into  Tears,  as  the  Prophet  did 
when  be  looked  upon  Hazael;  and 
then  set  on  them  with  the  most  vehe- 
ment and  importunate  Exhortations. 
O,  for  God's  sake,  and  for  the  sake 
of  poor  Souls,  bestir  yourselves,  and 
spare  no  Pains  that  may  conduce  to 
their  Salvation! 

What  Cause  have  we  to  bleed  be- 
fore the  Lord  this  Day,  that  we  have 
so  long  neglected  this  good  Work! 
If  we  had  but  set  upon  it  sooner, 
how  many  more  might  have  been 
brought  to  Christ?  And  how  much 
holier  and  happier  might  we  have 
made  our  Societies  before  now? 
And  why  might  we  not  have  done 
it  sooner?  There  were  many  Hin- 
drances: And  so  there  always  will 
be.  But  the  greatest  Hindrance  was 
in  ourselves,  in  our  Littleness  of 
Faith  and  Love. 

But  it  is  objected,  I.  This  will  take 


his  appearing,  preach  the  luord,  be  in- 
stant in  season,  out  of  season  :  reprove, 
rebuke,  exhort,  luith  all  long-suffer- 
ing. 

O  Brethren,  if  we  could  but  set 
this  work  on  foot  in  all  our  Societies, 
and  prosecute  it  zealously,  what  Glo- 
ry would  redound  to  God?  If  the 
common  ignorance  were  banished, 
and  every  shop  and  every  house 
busied  in  speaking  of  the  word  and 
works  of  God:  surely  God  would 
dwell  in  our  habitations,  and  make 
us  his  delight. 

And  this  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  welfare  of  our  people,  many  of 
whom  neither  believe  nor  repent  to 
this  day.  Look  around  and  see  how 
many  of  them  are  still  in  apparent 
danger  of  damnation.  And  how  Can 
you  walk  and  talk  and  be  merry  with 
such  people,  when  you  know  their 
case  ?  Methinks  when  you  look  them 
in  the  face,  you  should  break  forth 
into  tears,  as  the  Prophet  did  when 
he  looked  upon  Hazael;  and  then  set 
on  them  with  the  most  vehement  and 
importunate  exhortations.  O,  for 
God's  sake,  and  for  the  sake  of  poor 
souls,  bestir  yourselves,  and  spare  no 
pains  that  may  conduce  to  their  sal- 
vation. 

What  cause  have  we  to  bleed  be- 
fore the  Lord  this  day,  that  we  have 
so  long  neglected  this  good  work! 
If  we  had  but  set  upon  it  sooner, 
how  many  more  might  have  been 
brought  to  Christ!  And  how  much 
holier  and  happier  might  we  have 
made  our  Societies  before  now? 
And  why  might  we  not  have  done 
it  sooner.?  There  were  many  hin- 
drances: and  so  there  always  will 
be.  But  the  greatest  hindrance  was 
in  ourselves,  in  our  littleness  of  faith 
and  love. 

But  it  is  objected,  I.  This  will  take 


542  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


up  so  much  Time,  that  we  shall  not 
have  Leisure  to  follow  our  Studies. 

We  answer,  i.  Gaining  Knowledge 
is  a  good  Thing,  but  saving  Souls  is 
a  better.  2.  By  this  very  Thing  you 
will  gain  the  most  excellent  Knowl- 
edge, that  of  God  and  Eternity.  3. 
You  will  have  time  for  gaining  other 
Knowledge  too.  Only  sleep  not 
more  than  you  need;  and  never  be 
Idle  or  triflingly  employed.  But  4. 
If  you  can  do  but  one,  let  your 
Studies  alone.  I  would  throw  by  all 
the  Libraries  in  the  World  rather 
than  be  guilty  of  the  Loss  of  one 
Soul. 


It  is  objected,  II.  "The  People 
will  not  submit  to  it."  If  some  will 
not,  others  will.  And  the  Success 
with  them,  will  repay  all  your  La- 
bour. O  let  us  herein  follow  the  ex- 
ample of  St.  Paul. 

I.  For  our  general  Business,  Serv- 
ing the  Lord,  with  all  Humility  of 
Mind:  2.  Our  special  Work,  Taie 
heed  to  yourselves  and  to  all  the  Flock  : 
3.  Our  Doctrine,  Repentance  toward 
God,  and  Faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ:  4.  The  Place,  I  have  taught 
You  publicly  and  from  House  to  House  : 
5.  The  Object  and  Manner  of  Teach- 
ing, /  ceased  not  to  ivarn  ez'cry  one, 
Night  and  Day,  with  Tears:  6.  His 
Innocence  and  Self-Denial  herein,  / 
have  coveted  no  Man''s  Silver  or  Gold: 
7.  His  Patience,  Neither  count  I  my 
Life  dear  unto  myself.  And  among 
all  our  Motives,  Let  these  be  ever  be- 
fore our  Eyes:  i.  The  Church  of  God, 
■which  he  hath  furcliased  with  his  own 
Blood.    2.  Grievous  Wolves  shall  enter 


up  so  much  time,  that  we  shall  not 
have  time  to  follow  our  studies. 

I  answer,  i.  Gaining  knowledge  is 
a  good  thing;  but  saving  souls  is  a 
better.  2.  By  this  very  thing  you  will 
gain  the  most  excellent  knowledge, 
that  of  God,  and  Eternity.  3.  You 
will  have  time  for  gaining  other 
knowledge  too,  if  you  spend  all  your 
Mornings  therein.  Only  sleep  not 
more  than  you  need;  and  never  be 
idle  or  triflingly  employed.  But  4. 
If  you  can  do  but  one,  let  your  studies 
alone.  I  would  throw  by  all  the  Li- 
braries in  the  world,  rather  than  be 
guilty  of  the  loss  of  one  soul. 

I  allow,  in  some  of  the  country  Cir- 
cuits, where  you  have  only  a  few  days 
to  spend  in  each  place,  you  have  not 
time  for  this  excellent  work.  But  you 
have,  wherever  you  spend  several 
days  together  in  one  Town. 

It  is  objected,  II.  "  The  people  will 
not  submit  to  it."  If  some  will  not, 
others  will.  And  the  success  with 
them,  will  repay  all  your  labour.  O 
let  us  herein  follow  the  example  of 
St.  Paul. 

I.  For  our  general  business,  Serv- 
ing the  Lord,  with  all  humility  of 
mind:  2.  Our  special  work.  Take 
heed  to  yourselves  atid  to  all  the  flock: 
3.  Our  Doctrine,  Repentance  toward 
God,  and  Faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ:  4.  The  place,  /  have  taught 
you  fuhlickly,  and  from  house  to  house: 
5.  The  object  and  manner  of  teach- 
ing, /  ceased  not  to  warn  every  one, 
night  and  day,  with  tears:  6.  His 
innocence  and  self-denial  herein, 
/  have  coveted  no  man's  silver  or  gold: 
7.  His  patience.  Neither  count  I  my 
life  dear  unto  myself.  And  among  all 
our  motives,  let  these  be  ever  be- 
fore our  eyes.  i.  The  Church  of  God, 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood:  2.  Grievous  wolves  shall  enter 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  543 


in;  yea,  of  yourselves  shall  Men  arise, 
tpeaking  perverse  Things.  Write  this 
upon  your  Hearts,  and  it  will  do  you 
more  good  than  Twenty  Years' 
Study. 

Let  every  Preacher,  having  a  Cat- 
alogue of  those  in  each  Society,  go  to 
each  House:  And  deal  gently  with 
them,  that  the  Report  of  it  may  move 
others  to  desire  your  Coming.  Do 
this  in  earnest,  and  you  will  soon 
find  what  a  Work  you  take  in  Hand, 
in  undertaking  to  be  a  Travelling- 
Preacher. 


in:  yea,  of  yourselves  shall  men  arise, 
speaking  perverse  things.  Write  this 
upon  your  hearts,  and  it  will  do 
you  more  good  than  twenty  years' 
study. 

Let  every  Preacher,  having  a  cata- 
logue of  those  in  each  Society,  go  to 
each  house.  Deal  gently  with  them, 
that  the  report  of  it  may  move  others 
to  desire  your  coming.  Give  the 
children  "the  Instructions  for  Chil- 
dren," and  encourage  them  to  get 
them  by  heart.  Indeed  you  will  find 
it  no  easy  matter  to  teach  the  igno- 
rant the  principles  of  religion.  So 
true  is  the  remark  of  Archbishop 
Usher,  "  Great  Scholars  may  think 
this  work  beneath  them.  But  they 
should  consider,  the  laying  the  foun- 
dation skilfully,  as  it  is  of  the  greatest 
importance,  so  it  is  the  master-piece 
of  the  wisest  builder.  And  let  the 
wisest  of  us  all  try,  whenever  we 
please,  we  shall  find,  that  to  lay  this 
ground-work  rightly,  to  make  the  ig- 
norant understand  the  grounds  of  Re- 
ligion, will  put  us  to  the  trial  of  all 
our  skill." 

Perhaps  in  doing  this  it  may  be  well, 
I.  After  a  few  loving  words  spoken 
to  all  in  the  house,  to  take  each  per- 
son singly  into  another  room,  where 
you  may  deal  closely  with  him,  about 
his  sin,  and  misery,  and  duty.  Set 
these  home,  or  you  lose  all  your  la- 
bour. (At  least,  let  none  be  present 
but  those  who  are  familiar  with  each 
other.) 

2.  Hear  what  the  children  have 
learnt  by  heart. 

3.  Chuse  some  of  the  weightiest 
points,  and  try  if  they  understand 
them.  As, "Do you  believe  you  have 
sin  in  you?  Wbat  does  sin  deserve.' 
What  remedy  has  God  provided  for 
guilty,  helpless  sinners.'" 

4.  Often  with  the  Question  suggest 


544         First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


the  Answer.  As,  What  is  Repent- 
ance? Sorrow  for  sin,  or  a  convic- 
tion, that  we  are  guilty,  helpless  sin- 
ners? What  is  Faith?  A  divine  con- 
viction of  things  not  seen?" 

5.  Where  you  perceive  they  do  not 
understand  the  stress  of  your  Ques- 
tion, lead  them  into  it  by  other  Ques- 
tions. For  instance,  you  ask,  "How 
do  you  think  your  sins  will  be  par- 
doned?" They  answer,  "  By  repent- 
ing and  mending  my  life. "  You  ask 
farther,  "  But  will  your  amendment 
make  satisfaction  foryourpast  sins?" 
They  will  answer,  "  I  hope  so,  or  I 
know  not  what  will."  One  would 
think,  these  had  no  knowledge  of 
Christ  at  all.  And  some  have  not. 
But  others  have,  and  give  such  an- 
swers only,  because  they  do  not  un- 
derstand the  scope  of  the  question. 
Ask  them  farther,  "  Can  you  be  saved 
without  the  death  of  Christ  ? "  They 
immediately  say,  "No."  And  if  you 
ask,  "What  has  he  suffered  for  you?" 
They  will  say,  "  He  shed  his  blood  for 
us."  But  many  cannot  express  even 
what  they  have  some  conception  of: 
no,  not  even  when  expressions  are 
put  into  their  mouths.  With  these 
you  are  to  deal  exceeding  tenderly, 
lest  they  be  discouraged. 

6.  If  you  perceive  them  troubled, 
that  they  cannotanswer,  step  in  your- 
self, and  take  the  burden  off  them  ;  an- 
swering the  question  yourself.  And 
do  it  thoroughly  and  plainly,  making 

'  a  full  explication  of  the  whole  busi- 

I  ness  to  them. 

I  7.  When  you  have  tried  their  knowl- 

edge, proceed  to  instruct  them,  ac- 
cording to  their  several  capacities.  If 
a  man  understands  the  fundamentals, 
speak  what  you  perceive  he  most 
needs,  either  explaining  farther  some 
doctrines,  or  some  duty,  or  shewing 
him  the  necessity  of  something  which 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  545 


Q.  16.  How  shall  we  prevent  im- 
proper Persons  from  insinuating  into 
the  Society  ? 

A.  I.  Give  Tickets  to  none  till  they 
are  recommended  by  a  Leader,  with 
whom  they  have  met  at  least  two 
Months  on  Trial. 

2.  Give  Notes  to  none  but  those 
who  are  recommended  by  one  you 
36 


he  neglects.  If  he  still  understands 
not,  go  over  it  again  till  he  does. 

8.  Next  enquire  into  his  state,  wheth- 
er convinced  or  unconvinced,  con- 
verted or  unconverted.'  Tell  him,  if 
need  be,  what  conversion  is  :  and  then 
renew  and  inforce  the  enquiry. 

9.  If  unconverted,  labour  with  all 
your  power  to  bring  his  heart  to  a 
sense  of  his  condition.  Set  this  home 
with  a  more  earnest  voice  than  you 
spoke  before.  Get  to  the  heart,  or 
you  do  nothing. 

10.  Conclude  all  with  a  strong  ex- 
hortation, which  should  inforce,  i. 
The  duty  of  the  heart,  in  order  to  re- 
ceive Christ.  2.  The  avoiding  former 
sins,  and  constantly  using  the  outward 
means.  And  be  sure,  if  you  can,  to 
get  their  promise,  to  forsake  sin, 
change  their  company,  and  use  the 
Means.  And  do  this  solemnly,  re- 
minding them  of  the  presence  of 
God,  who  hears  their  promises,  and 
expects  performance. 

11.  Before  you  leave  them,  engage 
the  head  of  each  family  to  call  all  his 
family  together  every  Sunday  before 
they  go  to  bed,  and  hear  what  they 
can  repeat,  and  so  continue,  till  they 
have  learnt  the  Instructions  perfectly . 
And  afterwards  let  him  take  care,  that 
they  do  not  forget  what  they  have 
learnt. 

Do  this  in  earnest,  and  you  will 
soon  find  what  a  work  you  take  in 
hand,  in  undertaking  to  be  a  travel- 
ling Preacher  I 

Q.  14.  How  shall  we  prevent  Im- 
proper persons  from  insinuating  into 
the  Society.' 

A.  I.  Give  Tickets  to  none  till  they 
are  recommended  by  a  Leader,  with 
whom  they  have  met  at  least  two 
months  on  trial. 

2.  Give  Notes  to  none  but  those  who 
are  recommended  by  one  you  know, 


54^  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


know,  or  till  the/  have  met  three  or 
four  Times  in  a  Class. 

3.  Give  them  the  Rules  the  first 
Time  they  meet. 

Q.  17.  When  shall  we  admit  new 
Members.'' 

A.  In  large  Towns,  admit  them 
into  the  Bands  at  the  quarterly  Love- 
Feast  following  the  Quarterly-Meet- 
ing: Into  the  Society,  on  the  Sunday 
following  the  Quarterly  -  Meeting. 
Then  also  read  the  Names  of  them 
that  are  excluded. 

Q.  18.  Should  we  insist  on  the 
Rules  concerning  Dress. 

A.  By  all  means.  This  is  no  Time 
to  give  any  Encouragement  to  Su- 
perfluity of  Apparel.  Therefore  give 
no  Tickets  to  any,  till  they  have  left 
off  superfluous  Ornaments.  In  order 
to  this,  I.  Let  every  Assistant  read 
the  Thoughts  upon  Dress  at  least 
once  a  Year  in  every  large  Society. 
2.  In  visiting  the  Classes,  be  very 
mild,  but  very  strict.  3.  Allow  no 
exempt  Case,  not  even  of  a  married 
Woman.  Better  one  suffer  than  many. 
4.  Give  no  Tickets  to  any  that  wear 
High-Heads,  enormous  Bonnets,  Ruf- 
fles or  Rings. 

Q.  19.  What  can  be  done  to  en- 
courage meeting  in  Band? 

A.  I.  In  every  large  Society,  have 
a  Love-Feast  quarterly  for  the  Bands 
only.  2.  Never  fail  to  meet  them 
once  a  Week.  3.  Exhort  every  Be- 
liever to  embrace  the  Advantage.  4. 
Give  a  Band-Ticket  to  none  till  they 
have  met  a  Quarter  on  Trial. 


or  till  they  have  met  three  or  four 
times  in  a  Class. 

3.  Give  them  the  Rules  the  first  time 
they  meet. 

Q.  15.  When  shall  we  admit  new 
members.' 

A.  In  large  Towns,  admit  them  into 
the  Bands  at  the  quarterly  Love-feast 
following  the  Visitation:  into  the  So- 
ciety, on  the  Sunday  following  the 
Visitation.  Then  also  read  the  names 
of  them  that  are  excluded. 

Q.  16.  Should  we  insist  on  the  Band- 
Rules.?  Particularly  with  regard  to 
Dress.? 

A.  By  all  means.  This  is  no  time 
to  give  any  Encouragement  to  Super- 
fluity of  Apparel.  Therefore  give  no 
Band- Tickets  to  any,  till  they  have 
left  off  superfluous  Ornaments.  In 
order  to  this,  i.  Let  every  Assistant 
read  the  Thoughts  upon  Dress,  at 
least  once  a  year,  in  every  large  So- 
ciety. 2.  In  visiting  the  Classes,  be 
very  mild,  but  very  strict.  3.  Allow 
no  exempt  case,  not  even  of  a  mar- 
ried Woman.  Better  one  suffer  than 
many.  4.  Give  no  Ticket  to  any  that 
wear  Calashes,  High-Heads,  or  enor- 
mous Bonnets. 

To  encourage  meeting  in  Band,  i. 
In  every  large  Society,  have  a  Love- 
feast  quarterly  for  the  Bands  only. 
2.  Never  fail  to  meet  them  once  a 
week.  3.  Exhort  every  Believer  to 
embrace  the  advantage.  4.  Give  a 
Band-Ticket  to  none  till  they  have 
met  a  quarter  on  trial. 

Observe!  You  give  none  a  Band- 
Ticket,  before  he  meets,  but  after  he 
has  met! 

Q.  17.  Have  those  in  Band  left  off 
Snuff  and  Drams? 

A.  No.  Many  are  still  inslaved  to 
one  or  the  other.  In  order  to  redress 
this,  I.  Let  no  Preacher  touch  either 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  547 


Q.  20.  Do  we  observe  anj  Evil 
■which  has  lately  prevailed  among 
our  Societies? 

A.  Many  of  our  Members  have 
married  with  unawakened  Persons. 
This  has  had  fatal  Effects.  They  had 
either  a  Cross  for  Life,  or  turned 
back  to  Perdition. 

Q.  21.  What  can  be  done  to  put  a 
Stop  to  this 

A.  I.  Let  every  Preacher  publick- 
ly  inforce  the  Apostle's  Caution,  Be 
not  unequally  yoked  vjiih  Unbelievers. 
2.  Let  him  openly  declare,  whoever 
does  this  will  be  expelled  the  Soci- 
ety. 3.  When  any  such  is  expelled, 
let  a  suitable  Exhortation  be  sub- 
joined. And  4.  Let  all  be  exhorted 
to  take  no  Step  in  bo  weighty  a  Mat- 
ter without  advising  with  the  most 
serious  of  their  Brethren. 

Q.  22.  Ought  any  Woman  to  mar- 
ry without  the  Consent  of  her  Par- 
ents? 

A.  In  general,  she  ought  not  Yet 
there  may  be  an  Exception.  For  if, 
I.  A  Woman  be  under  the  Necessity 
of  marrying:  If,  2.  Her  Parents  ab- 
solutely refuse  to  let  her  marry  any 
Christian :  then  she  may,  nay,  ought 
to  marry  without  their  Consent. 
Yet  even  then  a  Methodist-Preacher 
ought  not  to  marry  her. 

Q.  23.  May  our  Ministers  or  Trav- 
elling-Preachers drink  spirituous  Li- 
quors ? 

A.  By  no  means,  unless  it  be  medi- 
cinally, 

Q.  24.  Do  not  Sabbath-breaking, 
Evil-speaking,  unprofitable  Conver- 
sation, Lightness,  Expensiveness  or 
Gaiety  of  Apparel,  and  Contract- 
ing Debts  without  due  Care  to  dis- 


on  any  account.  2.  Strongly  dissuade 
our  People  from  them.  3.  Answer 
their  pretences,  particularly  curing 
the  Cholic. 

Q.  18.  Do  we  observe  any  evil 
which  has  lately  prevailed  among 
our  Societies.' 

A.  Many  of  our  Members  have 
married  with  Unbelievers,  yea,  with 
unawakened  persons.  This  has  had 
fatal  effects.  They  had  either  a  cross 
for  life,  or  turned  back  to  perdition. 

Q.  19.  What  can  be  done,  to  put  a 
stop  to  this.' 

A.  I.  Let  every  Preacher  publickly 
inforce  the  Apostle's  caution,  Be  not 
unequally  yoked  vJtth  unbelievers.  2. 
Let  him  openly  declare,  whoever  does 
this  will  be  expelled  the  Society.  3. 
When  any  such  is  expelled,  let  a  suit- 
able exhortation  be  subjoined.  And, 
4.  Let  all  be  exhorted,  to  take  no  step 
in  so  weighty  a  matter  without  ad- 
vising with  the  most  serious  of  their 
brethren. 

Q.  20.  Ought  any  Woman  to  mar- 
ry without  the  consent  of  her  Par- 
ents 

A.  In  general,  she  ought  not.  Yet 
there  may  be  an  exception.  For  if, 
I.  A  woman  be  under  a  necessity  of 
marrying:  if  2.  Her  Parents  absolute- 
ly refuse  to  let  her  marry  any  Chris- 
tian :  then  she  may,  nay,  ought  to  mar- 
ry without  their  consent.  Yet  even 
then  a  Methodist-Preacher  ought  not 
to  marry  her. 


Q.  21.  Do  not  Sabbath-breaking, 
Dram-drinking,  Evil-speaking,  Un- 
profitable Conversation,  Lightness, 
Expensiveness  or  Gaiety  of  Apparel, 
and  contracting  Debts  without  due 


548  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


charge  them,  still  prevail  in  several 
Places?  How  may  these  Evils  be 
remedied? 

A.  1.  Let  us  preach  expressly  on 
each  of  these  Heads.  2.  Read  in 
every  Society  the  Sermon  on  Evil- 
speaking.  3.  Let  the  Leaders  closely 
examine  and  exhort  every  Person  to 
put  away  the  accursed  Thing.  4.  Let 
the  Preacher  warn  every  Society, 
that  none  who  is  guilty  herein  can 
remain  with  us.  5.  Extirpate  smug- 
gling, buying  or  selling  uncustomed 
Goods,  out  of  every  Society.  Let 
none  remain  with  us  who  will  not 
totally  abstain  from  every  Kind  and 
Degree  of  it.  6.  Extirpate  Bribery, 
receiving  any  Thing,  directly  or  in- 
directly, for  voting  in  any  Election. 
Shew  no  Respect  of  Persons  herein, 
but  expel  all  that  touch  the  accursed 
Thing. 


Q.  25.  What  shall  we  do  to  prevent 
Scandal,  when  any  of  our  Members 
become  a  Bankrupt? 

A.  Let  the  Assistant  talk  with  him 
at  large.  And  if  he  has  not  kept  fair 
Accounts,  let  him  be  expelled  imme- 
diately. 


Q.  26.  What  is  the  OfKce  of  a  Su- 
perintendent ? 


care  to  discharge  them,  still  prevail  in 
several  places?  How  may  these  Evils 
be  remedied? 

A.  I.  Let  us  preach  expressly  on 
each  of  these  heads.  2.  Read  in  every 
Society  the  Sermon  on  Evil-speak- 
ing. 3.  Let  the  Leaders  closely  ex- 
amine and  exhort  every  person  to  put 
away  the  accursed  thing.  4.  Let  the 
Preacher  warn  every  Society,  that 
none  who  is  guilty  herein  can  remain 
with  us.  5.  Extirpate  Smuggling, 
buying  or  selling  uncustomed  Goods, 
out  of  every  Society.  Let  none  re- 
main with  us,  who  will  not  totally  ab- 
stain from  every  kind  and  degree  of 
it.  Speak  tenderly,  but  earnestly  and 
frequently  of  it,  in  every  Society  near 
the  Coasts.  And  read  to  them,  and 
diligently  disperse  among  them,  "The 
Word  to  a  Smuggler."  6.  Extirpate 
Bribery,  receiving  any  thing,  directly 
or  indirectly,  for  voting  in  any  Elec- 
tion. Shew  no  respect  of  persons 
herein,  but  expel  all  that  touch  the 
accursed  thing.  Largely  shew,  both 
in  public  and  private,  the  wickedness 
of  thus  selling  our  Country.  And 
every  where  read  "The  Word  to  a 
Freeholder,"  and  disperse  it  with  both 
hands. 

Q.  22.  What  shall  we  do  to  prevent 
Scandal,  when  any  of  our  Members 
become  bankrupt? 

A.  Let  the  Assistant  talk  with  him 
at  large.  And  if  he  has  not  kept  fair 
Accounts,  or  has  been  concerned  in 
that  base  practice,  of  raising  Money 
by  coining  Notes,  (commonly  called 
the  Bill-trade)  let  him  be  expelled 
immediately. 

Q.  23.  What  is  the  OflBce  of  a  Chris, 
tian  Minister? 

A.  To  watch  over  souls,  as  he  that 
must  give  account. 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Mimites.  549 


A.  To  ordain  Superintendents,  Eld- 
ers and  Deacons;  to  preside  as  a 
Moderator  in  our  Conferences;  to 
fix  the  Appointments  of  the  Preach- 
ers for  the  several  Circuits:  and  in 
the  Intervals  of  the  Conference,  to 
change,  receive  or  suspend  Preach- 
ers, as  Necessity  may  require;  and  to 
receive  Appeals  from  the  Preachers 
and  People,  and  decide  them. 

N.  B.  No  Person  shall  be  ordained 
a  Superintendent,  Elder  or  Deacon, 
without  the  Consent  of  a  Majority  of 
the  Conference  and  the  Consent  and 
Imposition  of  Hands  of  a  Superin- 
tendent; except  in  the  Instance  pro- 
vided for  in  the  29th.  Minute. 

Q.  27.  To  whom  is  the  Superin- 
tendent amenable  for  his  Conduct? 

A.  To  the  Conference:  who  have 
Power  to  expel  him  for  improper 
Conduct,  if  they  see  it  necessary. 

Q.  28.  If  the  Superintendent  ceases 
from  Travelling  at  large  among  the 
People,  shall  he  still  exercise  his  Of- 
fice in  any  Degree? 

A.  If  he  ceases  from  Travelling 
without  the  Consent  of  the  Confer- 
ence, he  shall  not  thereafter  exercise 
any  ministerial  Function  whatsoever 
in  our  Church. 

Q.  29.  If  by  Death,  Expulsion  or 
otherwise  there  be  no  Superintend- 
ent remaining  in  our  Church,  what 
shall  we  do  ? 

A.  The  Conference  shall  elect  a 
Superintendent,  and  the  Elders  or 
any  three  of  them  shall  ordain  him 
according  to  our  Liturgy. 

Q.  30.  What  is  the  Office  of  an 
Elder  f 

A.  To  administer  the  Sacraments 
of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  to  perform  all  the  other  Rites 
prescribed  by  our  Liturgy. 

Q.  31.  What  is  the  Offlce  of  a 
Deacon  ? 


and     The  Large  Minutes. 


550  The  First  Discipline 

A.  To  baptize  in  the  Absence  of 
an  Elder,  to  assist  the  Elder  in  the 
Administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
to  marry,  bury  the  Dead,  and  read 
the  Liturgy  to  the  People  as  pre- 
scribed, except  what  relates  to  the 
Administration  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. 


Q.  32.  What   Is  the   office  of  a 
Helper? 
A.  1.  To  preach. 

2.  To  meet  the  Society  and  the 
Bands  weekly. 

3.  To  visit  the  Sick. 

4.  To  meet  the  Leaders  weekly. 
Let  every  Preacher  be  particularly 

exact  in  this,  and  in  Morning-Preach- 
ing. If  he  has  twenty  Hearers,  let 
him  preach. 

N.  B.  We  are  fully  deterrhined 
never  to  drop  Morning-Preaching, 
and  to  preach  at  five  wherever  it  is 
practicable. 


Q.  33.  What  are  the  Rules  of  a 
Helper? 

A.  I.  Be  diligent.  Never  be  un- 
employed. Never  be  triflingly  em- 
ployed. Never  while  aivay  Time: 
Neither  spend  any  more  Time  at  any 
Place  than  is  strictly  necessary. 

2.  Be  serious.  Let  your  Motto  be, 
Holiness  to  the   Lord.    Avoid  all 


Q.  24.  In  what  view  must  we  and 
our  Helpers  be  considered.'' 

A.  Perhaps  as  Extraordinary  Mes- 
sengers (i.  e.  out  of  the  ordinary  way) 
designed,  i.  To  provoke  the  regular 
Ministers  to  jealousy.  2.  To  supply 
their  lack  of  service,  toward  those 
who  are  perishing  for  want  of  knowl- 
edge. 

Q.  25.  What  is  the  Office  of  an 
Helper? 

A.  In  the  absence  of  a  Minister,  to 
feedandguide  the  flock:  in  particular, 

1.  To  preach  Morning  and  Evening. 
(But  he  is  never  to  begin  later  in  the 
Evening  than  Seven  o'Clock,  unless 
in  particular  cases.) 

2.  To  meet  the  Society  and  the 
Bands  weekly. 

3.  To  meet  the  Leaders  weekly. 
Let  every  Preacher  be  particularly 

exact  in  this,  and  in  the  Morning- 
Preaching.  If  he  has  twenty  Hear- 
ers, let  him  preach.  If  not,  let  him 
sing  and  pray. 

N.  B.  We  are  fully  determined, 
Never  to  drop  the  Morning-Preach- 
ing: and  to  continue  Preaching  at 
five,  whenever  it  is  practicable,  par- 
ticularly in  London  and  Bristol. 

Q.  26.  What  are  the  Rules  of  an 
Helper? 

A.  I.  Be  diligent.  Never  be  unem- 
ployed a  moment.  Never  be  trifling- 
ly employed.  Never  v.hile  aivay  time : 
neither  spend  any  more  time  at  any 
place  than  is  strictly  necessary. 

2.  Be  serious.  Let  your  motto  be. 
Holiness   to  the  Lord.     Avoid  all 


llie  First  Discipline      and      The  Large  Minutes.  551 


Lightness,  Jesting  and  foolish  Talk- 
ing. 

3.  Converse  sparingly  and  cautious- 
ly with  Women:  Particularly  with 
young  Women. 

4.  Take  no  Step  toward  Marriage 
without  first  consulting  with  your 
Brethren. 

5.  Beliere  Evil  of  no  one:  unless 
you  see  it  done,  take  heed  how  you 
credit  it.  Put  the  best  Construction 
on  every  thing.  You  know  the 
Judge  is  always  supposed  to  be  on 
the  Prisoner's  side. 

6.  Speak  Evil  of  no  one:  Else 
your  Word  especially  would  eat  as 
doth  a  Canker:  Keep  your  Thoughts 
within  your  own  Breast,  till  you 
come  to  the  Person  concerned. 

7.  Tell  every  one  who  is  under 
your  Care,  what  you  think  wrong  in 
his  Conduct  and  Tempers,  and  that 
plainly  as  soon  as  may  be:  Else  it 
will  fester  in  your  Heart.  Make  all 
haste  to  cast  the  Fire  out  of  your 
Bosom. 

8.  Do  not  aSect  the  Gentleman. 
You  have  no  more  to  do  with  this 
Character  than  with  that  of  a  Danc- 
ing-Master. A  Preacher  of  the  Gos- 
pel is  the  Servant  of  all. 

9.  Be  ashamed  of  nothing  but  Sin: 
Not  of  fetching  Wood  (if  Time  per- 
mit) or  drawing  Water:  Not  of  clean- 
ing your  own  Shoes,  or  your  Neigh- 
bour's. 

10.  Be  punctual.  Do  every  Thing 
exactly  at  the  Time.  And  do  not 
mend  our  Rules,  but  keep  them: 
Not  for  Wrath,  but  for  Conscience' 
sake. 

11.  You  have  nothing  to  do  but  to 
save  Souls.  Therefore  spend  and  be 
spent  in  this  Work.  And  go  always, 
not  only  to  those  that  want,  but  to 
those  that  want  you  most. 

Observe.    It  is  not  your  Business 


Lightness,  Jesting,  and  foolish  Talk- 
ing. 

3.  Converse  sparingly  and  cautiou*- 
ly  with  Women:  particularly  with 
young  Women. 

4.  Take  no  step  toward  Marriage, 
without  first  consulting  with  your 
Brethren. 

5.  Believe  evil  of  no  one:  unless 
you  see  it  done,  take  heed  how  you 
credit  it.  Put  the  best  Construction 
on  every  thing.  You  know  the  Judge 
is  always  supposed  to  be  on  the  Pris- 
oner's side. 

6.  Speak  evil  of  no  one:  else  your 
word  especially,  would  eat  as  doth  a 
Canker:  keep  your  thoughts  -within 
your  own  breast,  till  you  come  to  the 
person  concerned. 

7.  Tell  every  one  what  3-ou  think 
wrong  in  him,  and  that  plainly  as  soon 
as  may  be :  else  it  will  fester  in  your 
heart.  Make  all  haste  to  cast  the  fire 
out  of  your  bosom. 

S.  Do  not  affect  the  Gentleman. 
You  have  no  more  to  do  with  this 
character,  than  with  that  of  a  Danc- 
ing-Master. A  Preacher  of  the  Gos- 
pel Is  the  servant  of  all. 

9.  Be  ashamed  of  nothing  but  sin: 
not  of  fetching  wood  (if  time  permit) 
or  drawing  water:  not  of  cleaning 
your  own  shoes,  or  your  neigh- 
bour's. 

10.  Be  punctual.  Do  every  thing 
exactly  at  the  time.  And  in  general, 
do  not  mend  our  Rules,  but  keep  them  : 
not  for  wrath,  but  for  Conscience' 
Sake. 

11.  You  have  nothing  to  do,  but  to 
save  souls.  Therefore  spend  and  be 
spent  in  this  work.  And  go  always, 
not  only  to  those  that  want  you,  but 
to  those  that  want  you  most. 

Observe.    It  is  not  your  business, 


552  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


to  preach  so  many  Times,  and  to 
take  care  of  this  or  that  Society:  But 
to  save  as  many  Souls  as  you  can;  to 
bring  as  many  Sinners  as  you  possi- 
bly can  to  Repentance,  and  with  all 
your  Power  to  build  them  up  in  that 
Holiness  without  which  they  cannot 
see  the  Lord.  And  remember!  A 
Methodist-Preacher  is  to  mind  every 
Point,  great  and  small,  in  the  Meth- 
odist-Discipline! Therefore  you  will 
need  all  the  Sense  you  have:  And  to 
have  all  your  Wits  about  you! 

12.  Act  in  all  Things,  not  according 
to  your  own  Will,  but  as  a  Son  in  the 
Gospel.  As  such  it  is  your  Part  to 
employ  your  Time  in  the  Manner 
which  we  direct:  Partly  in  Preaching 
and  visiting  from  House  to  House: 
Partly  in  Reading,  Meditation,  and 
Prayer.  Above  all,  if  you  labour 
with  us  in  our  Lord's  Vineyard,  it  is 
needful  you  should  do  that  Part  of 
the  Work  which  we  advise,  at  those 
Times  and  Places  which  we  judge 
most  for  his  Glory. 

N.  B.  No  Heifer,  or  even  Deacon, 
shall  on  any  Pretence  at  any  Time 
whatsoever  administer  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

Q.  34.  Will  it  be  expedient  to  ap- 
point some  of  our  Helpers  to  read  the 
Morning  and  Evening  Service  out 
of  our  Liturgy  on  the  Lord's  Day  ? 

A.  It  will.  And  every  Helper 
who  receives  a  written  Direction  un- 
der the  Hand  of  a  Superintendent, 
may  regularly  read  the  Morning  and 
Evening  Service  on  the  Lord's  Day. 

Q.  35.  How  are  we  to  proceed  with 
those  Elders  or  Deacons  who  cease 
from  Travelling? 

A.  Unless  they  have  the  Permis- 
sion of  the  Conference  declared  un- 
der the  Hand  of  a  Superintendent, 
they  are  on  no  account  to  exercise 
any  of  the  peculiar   Functions  of 


to  preach  so  many  times,  or  to  take 
care  of  this  or  that  Society:  but  to 
save  as  many  souls  as  you  can;  to 
bring  as  many  sinners  as  you  possi- 
bly can  to  Repentance,  and  with  all 
your  power  to  build  them  up  in  that 
Holiness,  without  which  they  cannot 
see  the  Lord.  And  remember!  A 
Methodist-Preacher  is  to  mind  every 
point,  great  and  small,  in  the  Metho- 
dist-Discipline! Therefore  you  will 
need  all  the  Sense  you  have:  and  to 
have  all  your  wits  about  you! 

12.  Act  in  all  things,  not  according 
to  your  own  will,  but  as  a  Son  in  the 
Gospel.  As  such  it  is  your  part  to 
employ  your  time,  in  the  manner 
which  we  direct:  partly  in  preaching 
and  visiting  from  house  to  house: 
partly  in  Reading,  Meditation,  and 
Prayer.  Above  all,  if  you  labour 
with  us  in  our  Lord's  Vineyard,  it  is 
needful  that  you  should  do  that  fart 
of  the  work  which  we  advise,  at  tliose 
times  and  places  which  we  judge  most 
for  his  Glory. 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  553 


those  Offices  among  us.  And  if  they 
do,  they  are  to  be  expelled  immedi- 
ately. 

Q.  36.  What  Method  shall  we  take 
to  prevent  improper  Persons  from 
Preaching  among  us  as  Travelling- 
Preachers  ? 

A.  Let  no  Person  be  employed  as 
a  Travelling-Preacher,  unless  his 
Name  be  printed  in  the  Minutes  of 
the  Conference  preceding,  or  a  Cer- 
tificate be  given  him  under  the  Hand 
of  one  or  the  other  of  the  Superin- 
tendents, or,  in  their  Absence,  of 
three  Assistants  as  is  hereafter  pro- 
vided. And,  for  this  Purpose,  let  the 
Minutes  of  the  Conference  be  always 
printed. 

Q.  37.  What  shall  be  the  regular 
annual  Salary  of  the  Elders,  Deacons 
and  Helpers? 

A.  Twenty-four  Pounds  (Pennsyl- 
vania-Currency) and  no  more. 

Q.  38.  What  shall  be  annually  al- 
lowed the  Wives  of  the  married 
Preachers 

A.  Twenty-four  Pounds  (Pennsyl- 
vania-Currency) if  they  need  it,  and 
no  more. 

Q.  39.  How  is  this  to  be  provided  ? 

A.  By  the  Circuits  proportionably. 

Q.  40.  What  shall  be  allowed  the 
married  Preachers  for  the  Support  of 
their  Children.' 

A.  For  each  of  their  Children  un- 
der the  Age  of  six  Years,  let  them  be 
allowed  six  Pounds  (Pennsylvania- 
Currency):  and  for  each  Child  of  the 
Age  of  six  and  under  the  Age  of 
eleven,  eight  Pounds. 

Q.  41.  Are  there  any  Directions  to 
be  given  concerning  the  Negroes? 

A.  Let  every  Preacher,  as  often  as 
possible ,  meet  them  in  Class.  And 
let  the  Assistant  always  appoint  a 
proper  White  Person  as  their  Leader. 
Let  the  Assistants  also  make  a  regu- 


554  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


lar  Return  to  the  Conference,  of  the 
Number  of  Negroes  in  Society  in 
their  respective  Circuits. 

Q.  42.  What  Methods  can  we  take 
to  extirpate  Slavery? 

A.  We  are  deeply  conscious  of  the 
Impropriety  of  making  new  Terms 
of  Communion  for  a  religious  Socie- 
ty already  established,  excepting  on 
the  most  pressing  Occasion:  and 
such  we  esteem  the  Practice  of  hold- 
ing our  Fellow-Creatures  in  Slavery. 
We  view  it  as  contrary  to  the  Golden 
Law  of  God  on  which  hang  all  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  un- 
alienable Rights  of  Mankind,  as  well 
as  every  Principle  of  the  Revolution, 
to  hold  in  the  deepest  Debasement, 
in  a  more  abject  Slavery  than  is  per- 
haps to  be  found  in  any  Part  of  the 
World  except  America,  so  many 
Souls  that  are  all  capable  of  the  Im- 
age of  God. 

We  therefore  think  it  our  most 
bounden  Duty,  to  take  immediately 
some  effectual  Method  to  extirpate 
this  Abomination  from  among  us: 
And  for  that  Purpose  we  add  the  fol- 
lowing to  the  Rules  of  our  Society : 
viz. 

I.  Every  Member  of  our  Society 
who  has  Slaves  in  his  Possession, 
shall  within  twelve  Months  after  No- 
tice given  to  him  by  the  Assistant 
(which  Notice  the  Assistants  are  re- 
quired immediately  and  without  any 
Delay  to  give  in  their  respective  Cir- 
cuits) legally  execute  and  record  an 
Instrument,  whereby  he  emancipates 
and  sets  free  every  Slave  in  his  Pos- 
session who  is  between  the  Ages  of 
Forty  and  Forty-five  immediately,  or 
at  farthest  when  they  arrive  at  the 
Age  of  Forty-five: 

And  every  Slave  who  is  between 
the  Ages  of  Twenty-five  and  Forty 
Immediately,  or  at  farthest  at  the  Ex- 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  555 


piration  of  five  Years  from  the  Date 
of  the  said  Instrumerjt: 

And  every  Slave  who  is  between 
the  Ages  of  Twenty  and  Twenty-five 
immediately,  or  at  farthest  when  they 
arrive  at  the  Age  of  Thirty: 

And  every  Slave  under  the  Age  of 
Twenty,  as  soon  as  they  arrive  at 
the  Age  of  Twenty-five  at  farthest. 

And  every  Infant  born  in  Slavery 
after  the  above-mentioned  Rules  are 
complied  with,  immediately  on  its 
Birth. 

2.  Every  Assistant  shall  keep  a 
Journal,  in  which  he  shall  regularly 
minute  down  the  Names  and  Ages  of 
all  the  Slaves  belonging  to  all  the 
Masters  in  his  respective  Circuit,  and 
also  the  Date  of  every  Instrument 
executed  and  recorded  for  the  Man- 
umission of  the  Slaves,  with  the 
Name  of  the  Court,  Book  and  Folio, 
in  which  the  said  Instruments  re- 
spectively shall  have  been  recorded; 
Which  Journal  shall  be  handed  down 
in  each  Circuit  to  the  succeeding  As- 
sistants. 

3.  In  Consideration  that  these  Rules 
form  a  new  Term  of  Communion, 
every  Person  concerned,  who  will 
not  comply  with  them,  shall  have 
Liberty  quietly  to  withdraw  himself 
from  our  Society  within  the  twelve 
Months  succeeding  the  Notice  given 
as  aforesaid :  Otherwise  the  Assistant 
shall  exclude  him  in  the  Society. 

4.  No  Person  so  voluntarily  -with- 
drmvn  or  so  excluded,  shall  ever  par- 
take of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  with 
the  Methodists,  till  he  complies  with 
the  above-Requisitions. 

5.  No  Person  holding  Slaves  shall, 
in  future,  be  admitted  into  Society  or 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  till  he  previ- 
ously complies  with  these  Rules  con- 
cerning Slavery. 

N.  B.  These   Rules  are  to  affect 


55^  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


the  Members  of  our  Society  no  farther 
than  as  they  are  consistent  with  the 
Laws  of  the  States  in  which  they  re- 
side. 

And  respecting  our  Brethren  in 
Virginia  that  are  concerned,  and  aft- 
er due  Consideration  of  their  pecul- 
iar Circumstances,  we  allow  them 
iiuo  Tears  from  the  Notice  given,  to 
consider  the  Expedience  of  Compli- 
ance or  Non-Compliance  with  these 
Rules. 

Q.  43.  What  shall  be  done  with 
those  who  buy  or  sell  Slaves,  or  give 
them  away  ? 

A.  They  are  immediately  to  be  ex- 
pelled: unless  they  buy  them  on 
purpose  to  free  them. 

Q.  44.  Are  there  any  Directions  to 
be  given  concerning  the  Administra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper.' 

A.  I.  Let  it  be  recflmmended  to 
the  People  to  receive  it  kneeling: 
but  let  them  at  the  same  time  be  in- 
formed they  may  receive  it  either 
standing  or  sitting. 

2.  Let  no  Person  who  is  not  a 
Member  of  the  Society,  be  admitted 
to  the  Communion  -without  a  Sacra- 
ment-Ticket, which  Ticket  must  be 
changed  every  Quarter.  And  we 
empower  the  Elder  or  Assistant,  and 
no  others,  to  deliver  these  Tickets. 

Q.  45.  Is  there  any  Direction  to  be 
given  concerning  the  Administration 
of  Baptism? 

A.  Let  every  adult  Person,  and 
the  Parents  of  every  Child,  to  be 
baptized,  have  their  Choice  either  of 
Immersion  or  Sprinkling,  and  let  the 
Elder  or  Deacon  conduct  himself  ac- 
cordingly. 

Q.  46.  What  shall  be  done  with 
those  who  were  baptized  in  their  In- 
fancy, but  have  now  Scruples  con- 
cerning the  Validity  of  Infant-Bap- 
tism? 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  557 


A.  Remove  their  Scruples  by  Ar- 
gument^ if  you  can;  if  not,  the  Office 
may  be  performed  by  Immersion  or 
Sprinkling,  as  the  Person  desires. 

Q.  47.  Shall  Persons  who  continue 
to  attend  Divine  Service  and  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  other 
Churche's,  have  Liberty  at  the  same 
time  to  be  Members  of  our  Society  ? 

A.  They  shall  have  full  Liberty, 
if  they  comply  with  our  Rules. 

Q.  48.  Are  there  any  Directions  to 
be  given  concerning  the  Fees  of 
Office? 

A.  We  will  on  no  account  whatso- 
ever suffer  any  Elder  or  Deacon 
among  us  to  receive  a  Fee  or  Present 
for  administering  the  Ordinance  of 
Marriage,  Baptism,  or  the  Burial  of 
the  Dead.  Freely  we  have  received, 
and  freely  we  will  give. 


Q.  27.  What  Po-i'er  is  this,  which 
you  exercise  over  both  the  Preachers 
and  the  Societies? 

A.  Count  Zimendorf  loved  to  keep 
all  things  dose:  I  love  to  do  all  things 
openly.  I  will  therefore  tell  you  all  I 
know  of  the  matter,  taking  it  from  the 
very  beginning. 

I.  In  November  1738,  two  or  three 
persons  who  desired  to  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come,  and  then  a  few  more 
came  to  me  in  London^  and  desired  me 
to  advise,  and  pray  with  them.  I  said, 
"If  you  will  meet  me  on  Thursday 
night,  I  will  help  you  as  well  as  I  can." 
More  and  more  then  desired  to  meet 
with  them,  till  they  were  increased  to 
many  Hundreds.  The  case  was  after- 
wards the  same  at  Bristol,  Kingsxvood, 
Nevjcastle,  and  many  other  parts  of 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland.  It 
may  be  observed,  the  Desire  was  on 
tlietr  part,  not  mine.  My  desire  was, 
to  live  and  die  in  Retirement.  But  I 
did  not  see,  that  I  could  refuse  them 
my  help,  and  be  guiltless  before  God. 


558  The  First  Dtsct;plme     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


Here  commenced  my  Power;  name* 
Iv,  a  Power  to  appoint  -when,  and 
■where,  and  hoiv  they  should  meet; 
and  to  remove  those  whose  lives 
shewed  that  they  had  not  a  desire  to 
flee  from  the  wrath  to  come.  And 
this  Power  remained  the  same,  wheth- 
er the  people  meeting  together  were 
twelve,  or  twelve  hundred,  or  twelve 
thousand. 

2.  In  a  few  days  some  of  them  said, 
Sir,  we  will  not  sit  under  you  for 

nothing:  we  will  subscribe  quarter- 
ly." I  said,  "I  will  have  nothing; 
for  I  want  nothing.  My  Fellowship 
supplies  me  with  all  I  want."  One 
replied,  "  Nay,  but  you  want  an  hun- 
dred and  fifteen  founds  to  pay  for  the 
Lease  of  the  Foundery:  and  likewise 
a  large  sum  of  money,  to  put  it  into 
repair."  On  this  consideration  I  suf- 
fered them  to  subscribe.  And  when 
the  Society  met,  I  asked,  "  Who  will 
take  the  trouble  of  receiving  this 
money,  and  faying  it,  where  it  is 
needful?"  One  said,  "I  will  do  it, 
and  keep  the  account  for  you."  So 
here  was  the  first  Steivard.  After- 
wards I  desired  one  or  two  more  to 
help  me  as  Stewards,  and  in  process 
of  time,  a  greater  number. 

Let  it  be  remarked,  it  was  /  myself, 
not  the  People,  who  chose  these  Stew- 
ards, and  appointed  to  each  the  dis- 
tinct work,  wherein  he  was  to  help 
me,  as  long  as  I  desired.  And  here- 
in I  began  to  exercise  another  sort  of 
Poiver,  namely,  that  of  affointing  and 
removing  Stewards. 

3.  After  a  time  a  young  man  named 
Thomas  Maxficld,  came  and  desired  to 
help  me  as  a  Son  in  the  Gospel.  Soon 
after  came  a  second,  Thomas  Richards, 
and  then  a  third,  Thomas  Westall. 
These  severally  desired  to  serve  me 
as  Sons,  and  to  labour  W/en  and  -where 
I  should  direct.  Observe.  These  like- 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  559 


wise  desired  me,  not  I  them.  But  I 
durst  not  refuse  their  assistance. 
And  here  commenced  my  Power,  to 
appoint  each  of  these  when,  where,  and 
how  to  labour:  that  is,  while  he  chose 
to  continue  with  me.  For  each  had 
a  power  to  go  away  when  he  pleased: 
as  I  had  also,  to  go  away  from  them, 
or  any  of  them,  if  I  saw  sufficient 
cause.  The  case  continued  the  same, 
when  the  number  of  Preachers  in- 
creased. I  had  just  the  same  Power 
still,  to  appoint  xvhen,  and  where,  and 
how  each  should  help  me:  and  to  tell 
any  (if  I  saw  cause)  "I  do  not  desire 
your  help  any  longer."  On  these 
terms,  and  no  other,  we  joined  at 
first:  on  these  we  continue  joined. 
But  they  do  me  no  favour  in  being  di- 
rected by  me.  It  is  true,  my  reward 
is  with  the  Lord.  But  at  present  I 
have  nothing  from  it  but  trouble  and 
care;  and  often  a  burden,  I  scarce 
know  how  to  bear. 

4.  In  1744,  I  wrote  to  several  Cler- 
gymen, and  to  all  who  then  served 
me  as  Sons  in  the  Gospel;  desiring 
them  to  meet  me  in  London,  and  to 
give  me  their  advice,  concerning  the 
best  method  of  carrying  on  the  work 
of  God.  And  when  their  number  In- 
creased, so  that  it  was  not  convenient 
to  invite  them  all,  for  several  years  I 
wrote  to  those  with  whom  I  desired 
to  confer,  and  they  only  met  me  at 
London,  or  elsewhere:  till  at  length  I 
gave  a  general  permission,  which  I 
now  see  cause  to  retract. 

Observe.  I  myself  sent  for  these 
of  my  own  free  choice.  And  I  sent 
for  them  to  advise,  not  govern  me. 
Neither  did  I  at  any  time  divest  my- 
self of  any  part  of  the  Power  above 
described,  which  the  Providence  ol 
God  had  cast  upon  me,  without  any 
design  or  choice  of  mine. 

5.  What  is  that  Power?    It  is  a 


560  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


Power  of  admitiing  into  and  exclud- 
ing from  the  Societies  under  my  care : 
of  chusing  and  removing  Stewards: 
of  receiving  or  not  receiving  Helpers: 
of  appointing  them  -when,  -where,  and 
how  to  help  me,  and  of  desiring  any 
of  them  io  confer  with  me  when  I  see 
good.  And  as  it  was  merely  in  obe- 
dience to  the  Providence  of  God,  and 
for  the  good  of  the  people,  that  I  at 
first  accepted  this  Power,  which  I 
never  sought:  so  it  is  on  the  same 
Consideration,  not  for  profit,  honour, 
or  pleasure,  that  I  use  it  at  this  day. 

6.  But,  "Several  Gentlemen  are 
offended  at  your  having  so  muck  Pow- 
er." I  did  not  eeek  any  part  of  it. 
But  when  It  was  come  unawares,  not 
daring  to  bury  that  talent,  I  used  it 
to  the  best  of  my  judgment.  Yet  I 
never  was  fond  of  it.  I  always  did, 
and  do  now,  bear  it  as  my  burden; 
the  burden  which  God  lays  upon  me, 
and  therefore  I  dare  not  lay  it  down. 

But  if  you  can  tell  me  any  one,  or 
any  five  men,  to  whom  I  may  trans- 
fer this  burden,  who  can  and  will  do 
just  what  I  do  now,  I  will  heartily 
thank  both  them  and  you. 

7.  But  some  of  our  Helpers  say, 
"This  is  shackling  free-born  English- 
men,^' and  demand  a  free  Conference, 
that  is,  A  Meeting  of  all  the  Preach- 
er*, wherein  all  things  shall  be  de- 
termined by  most  votes.  I  answer, 
it  is  possible  after  my  Death  some- 
thing of  this  kind  may  take  place. 
But  not  while  I  live.  To  me  the 
Preachers  have  engaged  themselves 
to  submit,  to  "Serve  me  as  Sons  in 
the  Gospel."  But  they  are  not  thus 
engaged  to  any  man  or  number  of 
men  besides.  To  fue  the  people  in 
general  will  submit:  but  they  will 
not  thus  submit  to  any  other. 

It  is  nonsense  then  to  call  my  us- 
ing this  Power,  "Shackling  free-born 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  561 


Englishmen."  None  needs  to  sub- 
mit to  it  unless  he  v.'ill;  so  that  there 
is  no  shackling  in  the  case.  Every 
Preacher  and  every  member  may 
leave  me  when  he  pleases.  But  while 
he  chuses  to  stay,  it  is  on  the  same 
terms  that  he  joined  me  at  first. 

"Butthis  is  making  yourself  a  Pofe." 
This  carries  no  face  of  truth.  The 
Pope  affirms,  that  every  Christian 
must  do  all  he  bids,  and  believe  all  he 
says,  under  pain  of  damnation.  I 
never  affirmed  any  thing  that  bears 
any,  the  most  distant  resemblance  to 
this.  All  I  affirm  is,  "The  Preachers 
who  chuse  to  labour  with  me,  chuse 
to  serve  me  as  Sons  in  the  Gospel. 
And  the  people  who  chuse  to  be  un- 
der my  care,  chuse  to  be  so  on  the 
same  terms  they  were  at  first." 

Therefore  all  talk  of  this  kind  is 
highly  injurious  to  me,  who  bear  the 
burden  merely  for  your  sake.  And 
it  is  exceeding  mischievous  to  the 
people,  tending  to  confound  their  un- 
derstanding, and  to  fill  their  hearts 
with  evil  surmisings  and  unkind  tem- 
pers toward  7ne;  to  whom  they  really 
owe  more,  for  taking  all  this  load 
upon  me,  for  exercising  this  very 
Power,  for  shackling  myself  in  this 
manner,  than  for  all  my  preaching 
put  together :  because  preaching  twice 
or  thrice  a  day  is  no  burden  to  me  at 
all:  but  the  care  of  all  the  Preachers 
and  all  the  People,  is  a  burden  in- 
deed I 

Q.  28.  What  reasons  can  be  as- 
signed why  so  many  of  our  Preach- 
ers contract  nervous  Disorders? 

A.  The  chief  Reason,  on  Dr.  Cado- 
gall's  principles,  is  either  Indolence 
or  Intemperance.  I.  Indolence.  Sev- 
eral of  them  use  too  little  Exercise,  far 
less  than  when  they  wrought  at  their 
trade.  And  this  will  naturally  pave 
the  way  for  many,  especially  Nervous 


36 


562  The  First  Discij)line     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


Q.  49.  What  general  Method  of 
emplo_ying  our  Time  would  jou  ad- 
vise us  to? 

A.  We  advise  you,  i.  As  often  as 
possible  to  rise  at  four.  2.  From  four 
to  five  in  the  Morning,  and  from  five 
to  six  in  the  Evening,  to  meditate, 
pray,  and  read,  partly  the  Scripture 
with  Mr.  Weslefs  Notes,  partly  the 
closely  practical  Parts  of  what  he  has 
published.  3.  From  six  in  the  Morn- 
ing till  twelve  (allowing  an  Hour  for 
Breakfast)  to  read  in  Order,  with 
much  Prayer,  the  Christian  Library, 
and  other  pious  Books. 


Q.  50.  Why  is  it  that  the  People 
under  our  Care  are  not  better? 


Disorders.  2.  Intemperance,  (though 
not  in  the  vulgar  sense.)  They  take 
more  Food  than  they  did  when  they 
laboured  more.  And  let  any  man  of 
reflection  judge,  how  long  this  will 
consist  with  Health.  Or  they  use 
more  Sleep  than  when  they  laboured 
more.  And  this  alone  will  destroy 
the  firmness  of  the  Nerves.  If  then 
our  Preachers  would  avoid  Nervous 
Disorders,  let  them,  i.  Take  as  little 
Meat,  Drink  and  Sleep  as  nature  will 
bear:  and,  2.  Use  full  as  much  Exer- 
cise daily  as  they  did  before  they 
were  Preachers. 

Q.  29.  What  General  Method  of 
employing  our  time  would  you  ad- 
vise us  to? 

A.  We  advise  you,  1.  As  often  as 
possible  to  rise  at  four.  2.  From 
four  to  five  in  the  morning,  and  from 
five  to  six  in  the  evening,  to  meditate, 
pray  and  read,  partly  the  Scripture 
with  the  Notes,  partly  the  closely- 
practical  parts  of  what  we  have  pub- 
lished. 3.  From  six  in  the  morning 
till  twelve  (allowing  an  hour  for 
breakfast)  to  read  in  order,  with  much 
Prayer,  the  Christian  Library,  and 
the  other  Books  which  we  have  pub- 
lished in  prose  and  verse. 

Q.  30.  Should  our  Helpers  follow 
Trades? 

A.  The  question  is  not,  Whether 
they  may  occasionally  work  with 
their  hands,  as  St.  Paul  did  :  but 
whether  it  be  proper  for  them  to 
keep  Shop  or  follow  Merchandize? 
After  long  consideration,  it  was 
agreed  by  all  our  Brethren,  That  no 
Preacher  who  will  not  relinquish  his 
trade  of  buying  and  selling,  (though 
it  were  only  Pills,  Drops,  or  Balsams,) 
shall  be  considered  as  a  travelling 
Preacher  any  longer. 

Q.  31.  Why  is  it  that  the  people 
under  our  care  are  no  better? 


The  First  Discifline     and     The  Large  Aftnutes.  563 


A.  Other  Reasons  may  concur; 
but  the  chief  is,  because  we  are  not 
more  knovjtng  and  more  holy. 

Q.  51.  But  why  are  not  we  more 
knowing? 

A.  Because  we  are  idle.  We  for- 
get our  very  first  Rule,  "  Be  diligent. 
Never  be  unemployed.  Never  be  tri- 
flingly  employed.  Never  while  away 
Time;  neither  spend  any  more  Time 
at  any  Place  than  is  strictly  necessa- 
ry." 

I  fear  there  is  altogether  a  Fault 
in  this  Matter,  and  that  few  of  us  are 
clear:  Which  of  you  spends  as  many 
Hours  a-day  in  God's  Work,  as  you 
did  formerly  in  Man's  Work?  We 
talk,  talk, — or  read  History,  or  what 
comes  next  to  hand.  We  must,  abso- 
lutely must,  cure  this  Evil,  or  betray 
the  Cause  of  God. 

But  how?  I.  Read  the  most  useful 
Books,  and  that  regularly  and  con- 
stantly. Steadily  spend  all  the  Morn- 
ing in  this  Employ,  or  at  least  five 
Hours  in  four  and  twenty. 


"  But  I  have  no  Taste  for  Reading." 
Contract  a  Taste  for  it  by  Use,  or  re- 
turn to  your  Trade. 

"  But  I  have  no  Books."  We  de- 
sire the  Assistants  will  take  Care 
that  all  the  large  Societies  provide 


A.  Other  reasons  may  concur;  but 
the  chief  is,  because  we  are  not  more 
knowing  and  more  holy. 

Q.  32.  But  why  are  we  not  more 
knowing .'' 

A.  Because  we  are  idle.  We  for- 
get our  very  first  Rule,  "Be  diligent. 
Never  be  unemployed  a  moment. 
Neverbe  triflingly  employed.  Never 
while  away  time  ;  neither  spend  any 
more  time  at  any  place  than  is  strict- 
ly necessary." 

I  fear  there  is  altogether  a  fault  in 
this  matter,  and  that  few  of  us  are 
clear:  which  of  you  spends  as  many 
hours  a  day  in  God's  work,  as  you  did 
formerly  in  Man's  work?  We  talk, 
talk, — or  read  History,  or  what  comes 
next  to  hand.  We  must,  absolutely 
must,  cure  this  evil,  or  betray  the 
cause  of  God. 

But  how.'  I.  Read  the  most  useful 
Books,  and  that  regularly  and  con- 
stantly. Steadily  spend  all  the  Morn- 
ing in  this  Employ,  or  at  least,  five 
hours  in  four  and  twenty. 

"  But  I  read  only  the  Bible."  Then 
you  ought  to  teach  others  to  read 
only  the  Bible,  and  by  parity  of 
reason,  to  /tear  only  the  Bible  ; 
but  if  so,  you  need  preach  no 
more.  Just  so  said  George  Hell. 
And  what  is  the  fruit Why,  now 
he  neither  reads  the  Bible,  nor  any 
thing  else. 

This  is  rank  Enthusiasm.  If  you 
need  no  book  but  the  Bible,  you 
are  got  above  St.  Paul.  He  want- 
ed others  too.  Bring  the  Books,  says 
he,  but  especially  the  parchments,  those 
wrote  on  parchment. 

But  I  have  no  taste  for  Reading. 
Contract  a  taste  for  it  by  use,  or  re- 
turn to  your  trade. 

'  But  I  have  no  Books."  I  will 
give  each  of  you  as  fast  as  you  will 
read  them,  books  to  the  value  of  five 


564  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


Mr.  Wesley's  Works  for  the  Use  of  the 
Preachers. 


2.  In  the  Afternoon  follow  Mr. 
Baxter's  Plan.  Then  you  will  have 
no  Time  to  spare:  you  will  have 
Work  enough  for  all  your  Time. 
"  Then  likewise  no  Preacher  will  stay 
with  us  who  is  as  Salt  that  has  lost 
its  Savour.  For  to  such  this  Employ- 
ment would  be  mere  Drudgery.  And 
in  order  to  it,  you  will  have  need  of 
all  the  Knowledge  you  can  procure. 

The  Sum  is,  Go  into  every  House \rv 
course,  and  teach  every  one  therein, 
young  and  old,  if  they  belong  to  us, 
to  be  Christians  inwardly  and  out- 
wardly. 

Make  every  Particular  plain  to 
their  Understanding;  fix  it  in  their 
Memory;  write  it  on  their  Heart.  In 
order  to  this,  there  must  be  Line 
ufon  Line,  Precept  upon  Precept. 
What  Patience,  what  Love,  what 
Knowledge  is  requisite  for  this' 


We  must  needs  do  this,  were  it 
only  to  avoid  Idleness.  Do  we  not 
loiter  away  many  Hours  in,  every 
Week?  Each  try  himself:  No  Idle- 
ness is  consistent  with  Growth  in 
Grace.  Nay,  without  Exactness  in 
redeeming  Time,  you  cannot  retain 
the  Grace  you  received  in  Justifica- 
tion. 

But  what  shall  we  do  lor  t\\e  Pising 
Generation^  Who  will  labour  for 
them?    Let  him  who  is  zealous  for 


pounds.  And  I  desire  the  Assistants 
would  take  care,  that  all  the  large 
Societies  provide  our  Works  for  the 
use  of  the  Preachers. 

2.  In  the  Afternoon,  follow  Mr. 
Baxter's  plan.  Then  you  will  have 
no  time  to  spare:  you  will  have  work 
enough  for  all  your  time.  Then  like- 
wise no  Preacher  will  stay  with  us 
who  is  as  salt  that  has  lost  its  savour. 
For  to  such,  this  Employment  would 
be  mere  drudgery.  And  in  order 
to  it,  you  will  have  need  of  all  the 
knowledge  you  can  procure. 

The  sum  is,  Go  into  every  house  in 
course,  and  teach  every  one  therein, 
young  and  old,  if  they  belong  to  us, 
to  be  Christians,  inwardly  and  out- 
wardly. 

Make  every  particular  plain  to  their 
understanding;  fix  it  in  their  memo- 
ry; write  it  in  their  heart.  In  order 
to  do  this,  there  must  be  line  upon  line, 
precept  upon  precept.  What  Patience, 
what  Love,  what  Knowledge  is  req- 
uisite for  this? 

Q.  33.  In  what  particular  method 
should  we  instruct  them? 

A.  You  may  read,  explain,  inforce, 

1.  The  Rules  of  the  Society  ; 

2.  Instructions  for  Children : 

3.  The  fourth  Volume  of  Sermons, 
and 

4.  Philip  Henry's  Method  of  Fami- 
ly prayer. 

We  must  needs  do  this,  were  it 
only  to  avoid  Idleness.  Do  we  not 
loiter  away  many  Hours  in  every 
Week?  Each  try  himself:  no  Idle- 
ness can  consist  with  Growth  in 
Grace.  Nay  without  Exactness  in 
redeeming  time,  you  cannot  retain 
the  Grace  you  received  in  Justifica- 
tion. 

But  what  ahall  we  do  for  the  rising 
Generation  ?  Unless  we  take  care  of 
this,  the  present  Revival  will  be  res 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  565 


God  and  the  Souls  of  Men  begin 
norw. 


1.  Where  there  are  ten  Children 
whose  Parents  are  in  Society,  meet 
them  at  least  an  Hour  every  Week  : 

2.  Talk  with  them  every  time  you 
see  any  at  home: 

3.  Pray  in  Earnest  for  them: 

4.  Diligently  instruct  and  vehe- 
mently exhort  all  Parents  at  their 
own  Houses; 

5.  Preach  expressly  on  Education. 
"  But  I  have  no  Gift  for  this."  Gift 
or  no  Gift,  you  are  to  do  it;  else  you 
are  not  called  to  be  a  Methodist 
Preacher:  Do  it  as  you  can,  till  you 
can  do  it  as  you  would.  Pray  ear- 
nestly for  the  Gift,  and  use  the  Means 
for  it. 


Q.  52.  Why  are  not  -we  more  holy? 
Why  do  not  we  live  in  Eternity.' 
Walk  with  God  all  the  Day  long? 
Why  are  we  not  all  devoted  to  God? 
Breathing  the  whole  Spirit  of  Mis- 
sionaries? 

A.  Chiefly  because  we  are  Enthu- 
siasts; looking  for  the  End  without 
using  the  Means. 

To  touch  only  upon  two  or  three 
Instances : 

Who  of  you  rises  at  four?  Or  even 
at  five,  when  he  doe»  not  preach? 

Do  you  recommend  to  all  our  So- 
cieties the  five  o'clock  Hour  for  pri- 
vate Prayer?  Do  you  observe  it? 
Or  any  other  fixt  Time  ?  Do  not  you 
find  by  Experience  that  any  time  is  no 
time? 

Do  you  know  the  Obligation  and 
the  Benefit  of  Fasting?  How  often 
do  you  practise  it? 

The  Neglect  of  this  alone  is  suffi- 


unius  cetatis:  it  will  last  only  the  age 
of  a  man.  Who  will  labour  herein? 
Let  him  that  is  zealous  for  God  and 
the  souls  of  men  begin  now. 

1.  Where  there  are  ten  Children 
in  a  Society,  meet  them  at  least  an 
hour  every  week: 

2.  Talk  with  them  every  time  you 
see  any  at  home. 

3.  Pray  in  earnest  for  them  : 

4.  Diligently  instruct  and  vehe- 
mently exhort  all  Parents  at  their 
own  Houses: 

5.  Preach  expressly  on  Education, 
particularly  at  Midsummer,  when 
you  speak  of  Kings-wood.  "  But  I 
have  no  Gift  for  this."  Gift  or  no 
Gift,  you  are  to  do  it;  else  you  are 
not  called  to  be  a  Methodist  Preach- 
er: Do  it  as  you  can,  till  you  can  do 
it  as  you  would.  Pray  earnestly  for 
the  Gift  and  use  the  means  for  it. 
Particularly  study  the  Instructions 
and  Lessons  for  Children. 

Q.  34.  Why  are  not  rue  more  Holy  f 
Why  do  we  live  in  Eternity?  Walk 
with  God  all  the  day  long?  Why 
are  we  not  all  devoted  to  God? 
Breathing  the  whole  Spirit  of  Mis- 
sionaries ? 

A.  Chiefly  because  we  are  Enthu- 
siasts; looking  for  the  End,  without 
using  the  Means: 

To  touch  only  upon  two  or  three 
Instances. 

Who  of  you  rises  at  four?  Or  even 
at  five,  when  he  does  not  preach? 

Do  you  recommend  to  all  our  So- 
cieties, the  five  o'clock  Hour  for  Pri- 
vate Prayer?  Do  you  observe  it? 
Or  any  other  fixt  time?  Do  not  you 
find  by  experience,  that  any  time  is 
no  time? 

Do  you  know  the  Obligation  and 
the  Benefit  of  Fasting?  How  often 
do  you  practice  it? 

The  neglect  of  this  alone  is  sufE- 


566  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


cient  to  account  for  our  Feebleness 
and  Faintness  of  Spirit.  We  are  con- 
tinually grieving  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
God  by  the  habitual  Neglect  of  a 
plain  Duty.  Let  us  amend  from  this 
Hour? 

Q.  53.  But  how  can  I  fast  since  it 
hurts  my  Health.' 

A.  There  are  several  Degrees  of 
Fasting,  which  can  not  hurt  your 
Health.  We  will  instance  in  one. 
Let  us  every  [Friday  (beginning  on 
the  next)  avow  this  Duty  throughout 
the  Continent,  by  touching  no  Tea, 
Coffee  or  Chocolate  in  the  Morning, 
but  (if  we  want  it)  half  a  Pint  of  Milk 
or  Water-Gruel.  Let  us  dine  on 
Vegetables,  and  (if  we  need  it)  eat 
three  or  four  Ounces  of  Flesh  in 
the  Evening.  At  other  Times  let 
us  eat  no  Flesh-suppers.  These  ex- 
ceedingly tend  to  breed  nervous  Dis- 
orders. 

Q.  54.  What  is  the  best  general 
Method  of  Preaching.' 

A.  I.  To  convince  :  2.  To  offer 
Christ:  3.  To  build  up:  And  to  do 
this  in  some  Measure  in  every  Ser- 
mon. 

Q.  55.  Are  there  any  smaller  Ad- 
vices relative  to  Preaching,  which 
might  be  of  Use  to  us.' 

A.  Perhaps  these,  i.  Be  sure  never 
to  disappoint  a  Congregation,  unless 
in  case  of  Life  or  Death : 

2.  Begin  precisely  at  the  Time  ap- 
pointed: 

3.  Let  your  whole  Deportment  be- 
fore the  Congregation  be  serious, 
weighty  and  solemn: 

4.  Always  suit  your  Subject  to 
your  Audience : 

5.  Chuse  the  plainest  Texts  you 
can: 

6.  Take  care  not  to  ramble,  but 
keep  to  your  Text,  and  make  out 
what  you  take  in  Hand: 


cient  to  account  for  our  Feebleness 
and  Faintness  of  Spirit.  We  are  con- 
tinually grieving  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
God,  by  the  habitual  neglect  of  a 
plain  Duty!  Let  us  amend  from  this 
hour. 

Q.  35.  But  how  can  I  fast,  since  it 
hurts  my  Health.' 

A.  There  are  several  Degrees  of 
Fasting,  which  cannot  hurt  your 
Health.  I  will  instance  in  one.  Let 
you  and  I  every  Friday  (beginning 
on  the  next)  avow  this  Duty  through- 
out the  nation,  by  touching  no  tea, 
coffee  or  chocolate  in  the  Morning, 
but  (if  we  want  it)  half  a  pint  of 
Milk,  or  Water-gruel.  Let  us  dine 
on  Potatoes,  and  (if  we  need  it)  eat 
three  or  four  ounces  of  flesh  in  the 
Evening.  At  other  times  let  us  eat 
no  Flesh-Suppers.  These  exceed- 
ingly tend  to  breed  nervous  Disor- 
ders. 

Q.  36.  What  is  the  best  General 
Method  of  Preaching? 

A.  I.  To  invite:  2.  To  convince: 
3.  To  offer  Christ:  4.  To  build  up; 
and  to  do  this  in  some  measure  in 
every  Sermon. 

Q.  37.  Are  there  any  smaller  Ad- 
vices relative  to  Preaching,  which 
might  be  of  use  to  us? 

A.  Perhaps  these,  I.  Be  sure  never 
to  disappoint  a  Congregation,  unless 
in  case  of  Life  or  Death. 

2.  Begin  and  end  precisely  at  the 
time  appointed : 

3.  Let  your  whole  Deportment  be- 
fore the  Congregation  be  serious, 
weighty,  and  solemn: 

4.  Always  suit  your  subject  to  your 
Audience: 

5.  Chuse  the  plainest  texts  j-ou 
can : 

6.  Take  care  not  to  ramble,  but 
keep  to  your  text,  and  make  out 
what  you  take  in  hand : 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  567 


7.  Take  care  of  any  Thing  auk- 
ward  or  a£Eected  either  in  your  Ges- 
ture, Phrase  or  Pronunciation: 

8.  Sing  no  Hymns  of  your  own 
Composing: 

9.  Print  nothing  without  the  Ap- 
probation of  one  or  other  of  the  Su- 
perintendents: 

10.  Do  not  usually  ^ra.y  ex  tempore 
above  eight  or  ten  Minutes  (at  most) 
without  Intermission: 

11.  Frequently  read  and  inlarge 
upon  a  Portion  of  the  Notes:  And 
let  young  Preachers  often  exhort 
without  taking  a  Text : 

13.  Always  kneel  during  public 
Prayer: 

13.  Every  where  avail  yourself  of 
the  great  Festivals  by  Preaching  on 
the  Occasion: 

14.  Beware  of  Clownishness.  Be 
courteous  to  all. 

15.  Be  merciful  to  your  Beast.  Not 
only  ride  moderately,  but  see  with 
your  own  Eyes  that  your  Horse  be 
rubbed  and  fed. 


Q.  56.  Have  not  some  of  us  been 
led  off   from   Practical  Preaching 


7.  Be  sparing  in  Allegorizing,  or 
Spiritualizing: 

8.  Take  care  of  any  thing  awk- 
ward or  aSected,  either  in  your  Ges- 
ture, Phrase  or  Pronunciation: 

9.  Sing  no  Hymns  of  your  own 
Composing. 

10.  Print  nothing  without  my  ap- 
probation : 

11.  Do  not  usually  pray  above 
eight  or  ten  minutes  (at  most)  with- 
out intermission. 

12.  Frequently  read  and  inlarge 
upon  a  portion  of  the  Notes:  And 
let  3'oung  Preachers  often  exhort, 
without  taking  a  text: 

13.  In  repeating  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
remember  to  say  Hallowed,  not  hol- 
lowed ;  Trespass  against  us;  Amen : 

14.  Repeat  this  Prayer  aloud  after 
the  Minister,  as  often  as  he  repeats  it: 

15.  Repeat  after  him  aloud  every 
Confession,  and  both  the  Doxologies 
in  the  Communion-Service: 

16.  Always  kneel  during  public 
Prayer: 

17.  Every  where  avail  yourself  of 
the  Great  Festivals,  by  preaching  on 
the  occasion,  and  singing  the  Hymns, 
which  you  should  take  care  to  have 
in  readiness: 

18.  Avoid  quaint  .vords,  however 
in  fashion,  as  object,  originate,  very, 
high,  &c. 

19.  Avoid  the  fashionable  impro- 
priety of  leaving  out  the  u  in  many 
words,  as  Honor,  vigor,  &c.  This  is 
mere  childish  Affectation. 

20.  Beware  of  Clownishness.  Be 
courteous  to  all. 

21.  Be  merciful  to  your  beast.  Not 
only  ride  moderately,  but  see  with 
your  own  eyes,  that  your  horse  be 
rubbed,  fed  and  bedded. 

Q.  38.  Have  not  some  of  us  been 
led  off   from    Practical  Preaching 


568  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


by  (what  was  called)  preaching 
Christ? 

A.  Indeed  we  have.  The  most  ef- 
fectual Way  of  preaching  Christ,  is 
to  preach  him  in  all  his  Offices,  and 
to  declare  his  Law  as  well  as  his  Gos- 
j>elhot\\  to  Believers  and  Unbelievers. 
Let  us  strongly  and  closely  insist 
upon  inward  and  outward  Holiness 
in  all  its  Branches. 

Q.  57.  How  shall  we  guard  against 
Formality  in  Singing? 

A.  I.  By  chusing  such  Hymns  as 
are  proper  for  the  Congregation:  2. 
By  not  singing  too  much  at  once: 
seldom  more  than  five  or  six  Verses: 

3.  By  suiting  the  Tune  to  the  Words: 

4.  By  often  stopping  short  and  asking 
the  People,  "Now!  Do  you  know 
what  you  said  last.'  Did  you  speak 
no  more  than  you  felt?"  5.  Do  not 
suffer  the  People  to  sing  too  slow. 
This  naturally  tends  to  Formality, 
and  is  brought  in  by  them  who  have 
either  very  strong  or  very  weak 
Voices.  6.  In  every  large  Society 
let  them  learn  to  sing:  And  let  them 
always  learn  our  own  Tunes  first.  7. 
Let  the  Women  constantly  sing  their 
Parts  alone.  Let  no  Man  sing  with 
them,  unless  he  understands  the 
Notes,  and  sings  the  Base  as  it  is 
pricked  down  in  the  Tune-Book.  8. 
Introduce  no  new  Tunes  till  they 
are  perfect  in  the  old.  9.  Recom- 
mend our  Tune-Book  every  where: 
and  if  you  cannot  sing  yourself,  chuse 
a  Person  or  two  in  each  Place  to 
pitch  the  Tune  for  3'ou.  10.  Exhort 
every  one  in  the  Congregation  to 
sing,  not  one  in  ten  only.  11.  If  a 
Preacher  be  present,  let  no  Singer 
give  out  the  Words.  12.  When  they 
would  teach  a  Tune  to  the  Congre- 
gation, they  must  sing  only  the 
Tenor. 


by  (what  was  called)  ^reaching 
Christ? 

A.  Indeed  we  have.  The  most  ef- 
fectual way  of  preaching  Christ,  is  to 
preach  him  in  all  his  OfBces.  and  to 
declare  his  Laiv  as  well  as  his  Gos- 
fel,  both  to  Believers  and  Unbeliev- 
ers. Let  us  strongly  and  closely  in- 
sist upon  inward  and  outward  Holi- 
ness in  all  its  branches. 

Q.  39.  How  shall  we  guard  against 
Formality  in  public  Worship.''  Par- 
ticularly in  Singing? 

A.  I.  By  preaching  frequently  on 
the  head:  1.  By  taking  care  to  speak 
only  what  we  feel:  3.  By  chusing 
such  hymns  as  are  proper  for  the 
Congregation:  4.  By  not  singing  too 
much  at  once;  seldom  more  than 
five  or  six  verses:  5.  By  suiting  the 
tune  to  the  words:  6.  By  often  stop- 
ping short  and  asking  the  people, 
"Now!  Do  you  know  what  you  said 
last?  Did  you  speak  no  more  than 
you  felt?  " 

Is  not  this  Formality  creeping  in  al- 
ready, by  those  complex  tunes,  which 
it  is  scarce  possible  to  sing  with  De- 
votion? Such  is,  "Praise  the  Lord, 
ye  blessed  ones:"  Such  the  long 
quavering  Hallelujah,  annext  to  the 
Morning-Song  tune,  which  I  defy 
any  man  living  to  sing  devoutly. 
The  repeating  the  same  words  so 
often,  (but  especially  while  another 
repeats  different  words,  the  horrid 
abuse  which  runs  through  the  mod- 
ern Church-Music)  as  it  shocks  all 
Common  Sense,  so  it  necessarily 
brings  in  dead  Formality,  and  has  no 
more  of  Religion  in  it  than  a  Lanca- 
shire Hornpipe.  Besides,  it  is  a  fiat 
contradiction  to  our  Lord's  Com- 
mand, Use  not  vain  repetitions.  For 
what  is  vain  repetition  if  this  is  not? 
What  end  of  Devotion  does  it  serve? 

7.  Do  not  suffer  the  people  to  sing 


The  First  Disci;pline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  569 


Q.  58.  Who  is  the  Assistant? 

A.  The  Preacher  in  each  Circuit, 
who  is  appointed  from  Time  to  Time 
to  assist  the  Superintendents  in  the 
Charge  of  the  Societies  and  the  other 
Preachers  therein. 

Q.  59.  How  should  an  Assistant 
be  qualified  for  his  Charge? 

A.  By  walking  closely  with  God, 
and  having  his  Work  greatly  at 
Heart:  And  by  understanding  and 
loving  Discipline,  Ours  in  particular. 

Q.  60.  What  is  the  Business  of  an 
Assistant? 

A.  I.  To  see  that  the  other  Preach- 
ers in  hii  Circuit  behave  well,  and 


too  slow.  This  naturally  tends  to 
Formality,  and  is  brought  in  by  them 
who  have  either  very  strong  or  very 
weak  voices.  8.  In  every  large  So- 
ciety let  them  learn  to  sing:  and  let 
them  always  learn  our  own  Tunes 
first.  9.  Let  the  Women  constantly 
sing  their  parts  alone.  Let  no  man 
sing  with  them,  unless  he  under- 
stands the  Notes,  and  sings  the  Base, 
as  it  is  pricked  down  in  the  book. 
ID.  Introduce  no  new  Tunes,  till  they 
are  perfect  in  the  Old.  11.  Let  no 
Organs  be  placed  any  where,  till  pro- 
posed in  Conference.  12.  Recom- 
mend our  Tune-book  every  where: 
and  if  you  cannot  sing  yourself, 
chuse  a  person  or  two  in  each  place 
to  pitch  the  tune  for  you.  13.  Ex- 
hort every  one  in  the  Congregation 
to  sing,  not  one  in  ten  only.  14.  If  a 
Preacher  be  present,  let  no  Singer 
give  out  the  words.  15.  When  they 
would  teach  a  tune  to  the  Congrega- 
tion, they  must  sing  only  the  Tenor. 

After  Preaching,  take  a  little  Lem- 
onade, mild  Ale,  or  Candid  Orange- 
Peel.  All  spirituous  Liquors,  at  that 
time  especially,  are  deadly  poison. 

Q.  40.  Who  is  the  Assistant? 

A.  That  Preacher  in  each  Cir- 
cuit, who  is  appointed  from  time 
to  time,  to  take  charge  of  the 
Societies  and  the  other  Preachers 
therein. 

Q.  41.  How  should  an  Assistant  be 
qualified  for  his  charge? 

A.  By  walking  closely  with  God, 
and  having  his  work  greatly  at  heart: 
by  understanding  and  loving  Dis- 
cipline, Ours  in  particular,  and  by 
loving  the  Church  of  England,  and 
resolving  not  to  separate  from  it. 

Q.  42.  What  is  the  business  of  an 
Assistant? 

A.  To  see  that  the  other  Preach- 
ers in  his  Circuit  behave  well,  and 


570  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


want  nothing.  2.  To  renew  the 
Tickets  quarterly,  and  regulate  the 
Bands.  3.  To  take  in,  or  put  out  of 
the  Society  or  the  Bands.  4.  To  ap- 
point all  the  Stewards  and  Leaders, 
and  change  them  when  he  sees  it 
necessary.  5.  To  keep  Watch-Nights 
and  Love-Feasts.  6.  To  hold  Quar- 
terly-Meetings,and  therein  diligently 
to  inquire  both  into  the  temporal  and 
spiritual  Stale  of  each  Society.  7. 
To  take  care  that  every  Society  be 
duly  supplied  with  Books :  Particu- 
larly with  Kemfis,  the  Instruciiotis  for 
Children,  and  the  Primitive  Physic, 
which  ought  to  be  in  every  House. 

8.  To  take  exact  Lists  of  his  Societies 
and  bring  them  to  the  Conference. 

9.  To  send  an  Account  of  his  Circuit 
every  half  Year  to  one  of  the  Super- 
intendents. 10.  To  meet  the  married 
Men  and  Women,  and  the  single 
Men  and  Women  in  the  large  Soci- 
eties once  a  Quarter.  11.  To  over- 
look the  Accounts  of  all  the  Stew- 
ards. 


want  nothing:  2.  To  visit  the  Classes 
quarterly,  regulate  the  Bands,  and 
deliver  Tickets:  3.  To  take  in,  or 
put  out  of  the  Society  or  the  Bands: 
4.  To  keep  Watch-nights  and  Love- 
feasts:  5.  To  hold  Quarterly-Meet- 
ings, and  therein  diligently  to  en- 
quire both  into  the  temporal  and 
spiritual  State  of  each  Society:  6. 
To  take  care  that  every  Society  be 
duly  supplied  with  Books:  particu- 
larly with  Kempis,  Instructions  for 
Children,  and  the  Primitive  Physic, 
which  ought  to  be  in  every  House: 
7.  To  send  from  every  Quarterly- 
Meeting  a  circumstantial  Account 
(to  London)  of  every  remarkable  Con- 
version, and  remarkable  Death:  8. 
To  take  exact  Lists  of  his  Societies 
every  Quarter,  and  send  them  up  to 
London:  9.  To  meet  the  Married 
Men  and  Women,  and  the  Single 
Men  and  Women  in  the  large  Socie- 
ties once  a  quarter:  10.  To  over- 
look the  Accounts  of  all  the  Stew- 
ards. 

Q.  43.  Has  the  Office  of  an  As- 
sistant been  well  executed? 

A.  No,  not  by  half  the  Assistants. 
I.  Who  has  sent  me  word,  whether 
the  other  Preachers  behave  well  or 
ill  ?  2.  Who  has  visited  all  the  Class- 
es, and  regulated  the  Bands  quarter- 
ly? 3.  Love-feasts  Jor  the  Barids 
have  been  neglected:  Neither  have 
persons  been  duly  taken  in  and  put 
out  of  the  Bands.  4.  The  Societies 
are  not  half  supplied  with  Books; 
not  even  with  those  above-men- 
tioned. O  exert  yourselves  in  this  I 
Be  not  weary!  Leave  no  Stone  un- 
turned! 5.  How  few  Accounts  have 
I  had,  either  of  remarkable  Deaths, 
or  remarkable  Conversions?  6.  How 
few  exact  Lists  of  the  Societies?  7. 
How  few  have  met  the  Married  and 
Single  Persons  once  a  quarter? 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  571 


Q.  61.  Are  there  any  other  Direc- 
tions, which  you  would  give  the  As- 
sistants ? 

A.  Several,  i.  Take  a  regular  Cat- 
alogue of  your  Societies,  as  they  live 
in  House-row.  2.  Leave  your  Suc- 
cessor a  particular  Account  of  the 
State  of  the  Circuit.  3.  See  that  ev- 
ery Band-Leader  have  the  Rules  of 
the  Bands.  4.  Vigorously,  but  calm- 
ly, inforce  the  Eules  concerning 
needless  Ornaments  and  Drams.  5. 
As  soon  as  there  are  four  Men  and 
Women  Believers  in  any  Place,  put 
them  into  a  Band.  6.  Suffer  no  Love- 
Feast  to  last  above  an  Hour  and  a 
Half.  7.  Warn  all  from  Time  to 
Time,  that  none  are  to  remove  from 
one  Society  to  another  without  a  Cer- 
tificate from  the  Assistant  in  these 
Words,  (else  he  will  not  be  received 
in  other  Societies)  "A.B.  the  Bearer, 
is  a  Member  of  our  Society  in  C.  I 
believe  he  has  sufficient  Cause  for  re- 
moving." 8.  Every  where  recom- 
mend Decency  and  Cleanliness.  9. 
Read  the  Rules  of  the  Society,  with 
the  Aid  of  your  Helpers,  once  a  Year 
in  every  Congregation,  and  once  a 
Quarter  in  every  Society. 


Q.  44.  Are  there  any  other  Ad- 
vices, which  you  would  give  the  As- 
sistants.'' 

A.  Several,  i.  Take  a  regular  Cat- 
alogue of  your  Societies,  as  they 
live,  in  house-rovj :  2.  Leave  your 
Successor  a  particular  account  of  the 
state  of  the  Circuit:  3.  See  that 
every  Band-leader  have  the  Rules  of 
the  Bands:  4.  Vigorously, but  calm- 
ly inforce  the  rules  concerning  need- 
less Ornaments,  Drams,  Snuff  and 
Tobacco.  Give  no  band-ticket  to  any 
man  or  woman,  who  does  not  prom- 
ise to  leave  them  off:  5.  As  soon  as 
there  are  four  men  or  women  be- 
lievers in  any  place,  put  them  into  a 
Band:  6.  Suffer  no  Love-feast  to  last 
above  an  hour  and  a  half:  And  in- 
stantly stop  all  breaking  the  cake 
with  one  another :  7.  Warn  all  from 
time  to  time,  that  none  are  to  remove 
from  one  Society  to  another,  with- 
out a  Certificate  from  the  Assistant 
in  these  words,  (else  he  will  not  be 
received  in  other  Societies)  "  A.  B. 
the  Bearer,  is  a  member  of  our  So- 
ciety in  C.  I  believe  he  has  suffi- 
cient cause  for  removing."  8.  Ev- 
ery where  recommend  Decency  and 
Cleanliness.  Cleanliness  is  next  to 
Godliness.  9.  Exhort  all  that  were 
brought  up  in  the  Church,  to  con- 
tinue therein.  Set  the  example  your- 
self: and  immediately  change  every 
plan,  that  would  hinder  their  being 
at  Church,  at  least  Two  Sundays  in 
four.  Carefully  avoid  whatever  has 
a  tendency  to  separate  men  from  the 
Church:  in  particular,  preaching  at 
any  hour  which  hinders  them  from 
going  to  it.  And  let  all  the  Servants 
in  our  Preaching-houses  go  to  Church 
once  on  Sunday  at  least. 

Is  there  not  a  cause?  Are  we  not 
unawares  by  little  and  little  sliding 
into  a  separation  from  the  Church.' 


572  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


O  use  every  means  to  prevent  this! 
I.  Exhort  all  our  people  to  keep  close 
to  the  Church  and  Sacrament:  2. 
Warn  them  all  against  Niceness  in 
hearing,  a  prevailing  evil!  3.  Warn 
them  also  against  despising  the  Pray- 
ers of  the  Church:  4.  Against  calling 
our  Society  the  Church.  5.  Against 
calling  our  Preachers,  Ministers,  our 
Houses  Meeting-houses;  Call  them 
plain  Preaching-houses  or  Chappels: 
6.  Do  not  licence  them  as  Dissenters: 
The  proper  paper  to  be  sent  in  at  the 
Assizes,  Sessions  or  Bishop's  Court 
is  this:  "A.  B.  desires  to  have  his 
house  in  C.  licensed  for  Public  Wor- 
ship." 7.  Do  not  license  yourself 
till  you  are  constrained;  and  then 
not  as  a  Dissenter,  but  a  Methodist. 
It  is  time  enough  when  you  are 
prosecuted,  to  take  the  Oaths.  And 
by  so  doing  you  are  licensed. 

Q.  45.  But  are  we  not  Dissenters? 

A.  No.  Although  we  call  sinners 
to  repentance  in  all  places  of  God's 
dominion; and  although  we  frequent- 
ly use  Extejnporary  Prayer,  and  unite 
together  in  a  religious  Society:  Yet 
we  are  not  Dissenters  in  the  only 
sense  which  our  Law  adknowledges, 
namely  those  who  renounce  the 
Service  of  the  Church.  We  do  not: 
We  dare  not  separate  from  it.  We 
are  not  Seceders,  nor  do  we  bear  any 
resemblance  to  them.  We  set  out 
upon  quite  opposite  Principles.  The 
Seceders  laid  the  very  foundation  of 
their  work,  in  judging  and  condemn- 
ing others.  We  laid  the  foundation 
of  our  work,  in  judging  and  con- 
demning ourselves.  They  begin  ev- 
ery where,  with  shewing  their  Hear- 
ers, How  fallen  the  Church  and  Min- 
isters are.  We  begin  every  where, 
with  shewing  our  hearers,  how  fallen 
they  are  thetnselves. 

And  never  let  us  make  light  of  go- 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  573 


ing  to  Church,  either  by  word  or 
deed.  Remember  Mr.  Hook^  a.  very 
eminent,  and  a  zealous  Papist.  When 
I  asked  him,  "Sir,  What  do  you  do 
for  Public  Worship  here,  where  you 
have  no  Romish  Service?"  He  an- 
swered, "  Sir,  I  am  so  fully  convinced, 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  to  wor- 
ship God  in  public,  that  I  go  to 
Church  every  Sunday.  If  I  cannot 
have  such  worship  as  I  would,  I  will 
have  such  worship  as  I  can." 

But  some  may  say,  "Our  own 
Service  is  public  Worship."  Yes; 
but  not  such  as  supersedes  the 
Church-Service :  It  presupposes  Pub- 
lic Prayer,  like  the  Sermons  at  the 
University.  If  it  were  designed  to 
be  instead  of  the  Church-Service,  it 
would  be  essentially  defective.  For 
it  seldom  has  the  four  grand  parts  of 
Public  Prayer,  Deprecation,  Petition, 
Intercession,  and  Thanksgiving. 

If  the  people  put  ours  In  the 
room  of  the  Church-Service,  we 
hurt  them  that  stay  with  us,  and 
ruin  them  that  leave  us.  For  then 
they  will  go  no  where,  but  lounge 
the  Sabbath  away,  without  any  pub- 
lic worship  at  all. 

Q.  46.  Nay,  but  is  it  not  our  Duty, 
to  separate  from  the  Church,  consid- 
ering the  wickedness  both  of  the 
Clergy  and  the  People.' 

A.  We  conceive  not,  i.  Because 
both  the  Priests  and  the  people  were 
full  as  wicked  in  the  Jewish  Church. 
And  yet  it  was  not  'the  duty  of 
the  holy  Israelites  to  separate  from 
them:  2.  Neither  did  our  Lord  com- 
mand his  Disciples  to  separate  from 
them:  He  rather  commanded  the 
contrary.  3.  Hence  it  Is  clear,  ///a/ 
could  not  be  the  meaning  of  St. 
Paul's  words,  Come  out  from  among 
them,  and  be  ye  separate. 

Q.  47.  But  what  Reasons  are  there, 


574  ^^^^  First  Discipline      and      The  Large  Minutes. 


Q.  62.  Are  there  any  Directions  to 
be  given  the  Assistant  concerning  the 
Decision  of  Disputes  among  the  Peo- 
ple? 

A.  On  any  Dispute  of  Importance, 
or  difficult  to  be  settled,  let  the  As- 
sistant inquire  into  the  Circumstances, 
and  having  consulted  the  Stewards 
and  Leaders,  appoint  Referees,  whose 
Decision  shall  be  final,  and  the  Party 
expelled  that  refuses  to  abide  by  it  : 
Unless  there  appear  to  the  Assistant 
some  Fraud  or  gross  Mistake  in  the 
Decision,  in  which  Case  he  shall  ap- 
point new  Referees,  for  a  Re-Hear- 
ing of  the  Cause,  whose  Decision 
shall  be  absolutely  final. 

Q.  63.  Are  there  any  further  Di- 
rections needful  for  the  Preservation 
of  good  Order  among  the  Preachers? 

A.  In  the  Absence  of  a  Superin- 
tendent, a  Travelling  Preacher  or 
three  Leaders  shall  have  Power  to 
lodge  a  Complaint  against  any 
Preacher  in  their  Circuit,  whether 
Elder,  Assistant,  Deacon  or  Helper, 
before  three  neighbouring  Assistants; 
who  shall  meet  at  an  appointed  Time 
(proper  Notice  being  given  to  the 
Parties)  hear  and  decide  the  Cause. 
And  Authority  is  given  them  to 
change  or  suspend  a  Preacher,  if 
they  see  it  necessary,  and  to  appoint 
another  in  his  Place,  during  the  Ab- 
sence of  the  Superintendents. 

Q.  64.  If  there  happen  to  be  a  Va- 
cancy in  a  Circuit  by  the  Death  of 
a  Preacher,  by  his  withdrawing  him- 
self from  the  Work,  or  otherwise,  in 
the  Absence  of  a  Superintendent, 
who  are  to  fill  up  the  Vacancy? 


why  we  should  not  separate  from  the 
Church? 

A.  Among  others,  those  which 
were  printed  above  twenty  years  ago, 
intitled  "  Reasons  against  a  Separa- 
tion from  the  Church  of  England." 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  575 


A.  Three  neighbouring  Assistants, 
called  and  assembled  according  to  the 
preceding  Minute. 

Q.  65.  What  shall  we  do  with  those 
Members  of  our  Society  who  wilful- 
ly and  repeatedly  neglect  to  meet 
their  Class? 

A.  I.  Let  the  Assistant  or  one  of 
his  Helpers  visit  them,  wherever  it  is 
practicable,  and  explain  to  them  the 
Consequence,  if  they  continue  to 
neglect,  viz.  Exclusion. 

2.  If  they  do  not  amend,  let  the  As- 
sistant exclude  them  in  the  Society, 
informing  it  that  they  are  laid  aside 
for  a  Breach  of  our  Rules  of  Disci- 
pline, and  not  for  immoral  Conduct. 

Q.  66.  Do  we  sufficiently  watch 
over  each  other.' 

A.  We  do  not. 

Should  we  not  frequently  ask  each- 
other.  Do  you  walk  closely  with  God  ? 
Have  you  now  Fellowship  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son?  At  what  Hour 
do  you  rise?  Do  you  punctually  ob- 
serve the  Morning  and  Evening  Hour 
of  Retirement?  Do  you  spend  the 
Day  in  the  Manner  which  the  Con- 
ference advises?  Do  you  converse 
seriously,  usefully  and  closely? 


To  be  more  particular: 

Do  you  use  all  the  Means  of  Grace 
yourself,  and  inforce  the  Use  of  them 
on  all  other  Persons? 

They  are  either  Instituted  or  Pru- 
dential. 

I.  The  Instituted  are, 

I.  Prayer;  Private,  Family,  Pub- 
lic ;  consisting  of  Deprecation,  Peti- 
tion, Intercession  and  Thanksgiving. 
Do  you  use  each  of  these? 

Do  you  use  Private  Prayer  every 
Morning  and  Evening?  If  you  can, 
at   five    in    the   Evening,   and  the 


Q.  48.  Do  we  sufficiently  watch 
over  our  Helpers? 

A.  We  might  consider  those  that 
are  with  us  as  our  Pupils:  Into 
whose  behaviour  and  studies  we 
should  enquire  every  day. 

Should  we  not  frequently  ask  each. 
Do  you  walk  closely  with  God? 
Have  you  now  Fellowship  with  the 
Father,  and  the  Son?  At  what  hour 
do  you  rise?  Do  you  punctually  ob- 
serve the  Morning  and  Evening  hour 
of  Retirement?  Do  you  spend  the 
day  in  the  mannner  which  we  ad- 
vise? Do  you  converse  seriously, 
usefully  and  closely? 

To  be  more  particular; 

Do  you  use  all  the  Means  of  Grace 
yourself,  and  inforce  the  use  of  them 
on  all  other  persons? 

They  are  either  Instituted  or  Pru- 
dential. 

I.  The  Instituted  are, 

I.  Prayer;  Private,  Family,  Public; 
consisting  of  Deprecation,  Petition, 
Intercession,  and  Thanksgiving.  Do 
you  use  each  of  these? 

Do  you  use  Private  Prayer  every 
Morning  and  Evening?  If  you  can, 
at  five  in  the  Evening,  and  the  hour 


57^  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Mimites. 


Hour  before  or  after  Morning- 
Preaching? 

Do  you  forecast  daily,  wherever 
you  are,  how  to  secure  these  Hours? 
Do  you  avow  it  every  where?  Do 
you  ask  every  where,  Have  j'Ott  Fam- 
ily-Prayer? Do  you  retire  at  five 
o'clock? 

2.  Searching  the  Scriptures,  by 
(i.)  Reading;  constantly^mvc\^'P2L.xi 

of  every  Day  :  regularly,  all  the  Bible 
in  order:  carefully,  with  Mr.  Wesley'' s 
Notes:  seriously,  with  Prayer  before 
and  after:  fruitfully,  immediately 
practising  what  you  learn  there? 

(2.)  Meditating:  at  set  Times?  By 
any  Rule? 

(3.)  Hearing;  Every  Morning? 

Carefully?  With  Prayer  before, 
at,  after? 

Immediately  putting  in  Practice? 

Have  you  a  New  Testament  al- 
ways about  you? 

3.  The  Lord's  Supper?  Do  you 
use  this  at  every  Opportunity? 

With  solemn  Prayer  before?  With 
earnest  and  deliberate  Self-Devo- 
tion? 

4.  Fasting.  Hovj  do  you  fast  every 
Friday  ? 

5.  Christian  Conference.  Are  you 
convinced  how  important  and  how 
diiBcult  it  is  to  order  your  Conversa- 
tion right? 

Is  it  always  in  Grace?  Seasoned 
with  Salt?  Meet  to  mitiister  Grace  to 
the  Heartrs? 

Do  you  not  converse  too  long  at  a 
Time?  Is  not  an  Hour  commonly 
enough? 

Would  it  not  be  well  always  to 
have  a  determinate  End  in  View? 
And  to  pray  before  and  after  it? 

II.  Prudential  Means  we  may  use, 
either  as   common    Christians,   as  ' 
Methodists,  as  Preachers,  or  as  As- 
sistants. 


before  or  after  Morning- Preach- 
ing? 

Do  you  forecast  daily,  wherever 
'  you  are,  how  to  secure  these  hours? 
I  Do  you  avow  it  every  where?  Do 
you  ask  every  where.  Have  you  Fami- 
ly-Prayer?   Do  you   retire  at  five 
o'clock  ? 

II.  Searching  the  Scriptures,  by, 

1.  Reading;  constantly,  some  part 
of  every  day,  regularly,  all  the  Bible 
in  order:  carefully,  with  the  Notes; 
seriously  with  Prayer  before  and  aft- 
er; immediately  practising 
what  you  learn  there? 

2.  Meditating:  At  set  times?  By 
any  rule? 

3.  Hearing:    Every  Morning? 
Carefully?   With  Prayer  before,  at, 

after? 

Immediately  putting  in  practice? 
Have  you  a  New  Testament  always 
about  you  ? 

III.  The  Lord's  Supper.  Do  you 
use  this  at  every  opportunity? 

With  solemn  prayer  before  ?  With 
earnest  and  deliberate  Self-devo- 
tion ? 

IV.  Fasting.  Ho-w  do  you  fast 
every  Friday? 

V.  Christian  Conference.  Are  you 
convinced  how  important  and  how 
difficult  it  is,  to  order  yonr  conversa- 
tion right. 

Is  it  always  in  grace  ?  Seasoned  -with 
salt?  Meet  to  Minister  grace  to  the 
Hearers? 

Do  not  you  converse  too  long  at  a 
time?  Is  not  an  hour  commonly 
enough  ? 

Would  it  not  be  well,  always  to 
have  a  determinate  end  in  view? 
And  to  pray  before  and  after  it? 

II.  Prudential  Means  we  may  use 
either  as  common  Christians,  as 
Methodists,  as  Preachers,  or  as  As- 
sistants. 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  577 


1.  As  common  Christians:  What 
particular  Rules  have  you  in  order  to 
grow  in  Grace?  What  Arts  of  Holy 
Living? 

2.  As  Methodists:  Do  you  never 
miss  your  Class  or  Band? 

3.  As  Preachers:  Do  you  meet 
every  Society?  Also,  the  Leaders 
and  Bands  if  any  ? 

4.  As  Assistants:  Have  you  thor- 
oughly considered  your  Office.  And 
do  you  make  a  Conscience  of  execut- 
ing every  part  of  it? 

These  Means  may  be  used  without 
Fruit.  But  there  are  some  Means 
which  cannot;  namely,  Watching, 
Denying  ourselves,  Taking  up  our 
Cross,  Exercise  of  the  Presence  of 
God. 

1.  Do  you  steadily  watch  against 
the  World?  The  Devil?  Yourselves? 
Your  besetting  Sin? 

2.  Do  you  deny  yourself  every 
useless  Pleasure  of  Sense?  Imagi- 
nation? Honour?  Are  you  temperate 
in  all  things?  Instance  in  Food,  (i.) 
Do  you  use  only  that  Kind  and  that 
Degree  which  is  best  both  for  your 
Body  and  Soul  ?  Do  you  see  the  Ne- 
cessity of  this?  (2.)  Do  you  eat  no 
Flesh-Suppers?  No  late  Suppers? 
(3.)  Do  you  eat  no  more  at  each  Meal 
than  is  necessary?  Are  you  not 
heavy  or  drowsy  after  Dinner?  (4.) 
Do  you  use  only  that  Kind  and  that 
Degree  of  Drink  which  is  best  both 
for  your  Body  and  Soul?  (5.)  Do 
you  drink  Water?  Why  not?  Did 
you  ever?  Why  did  you  leave  it  off? 
If  not  for  Health,  when  will  you  be- 
gin again?  To-Day?  (6.)  How  often 
do  you  drink  Wine?  Every  Day? 
Do  you  -want  itf 

3.  Wherein  do  you  take  up  your 
Cross  daily?    Do  you  cheerfully  iecrr 

37 


1.  As  common  Christians:  What 
particular  Rules  hz.\e  you,  in  order  to 
grow  in  grace?  What  Arts  of  Holy 
Living? 

2.  As  Methodists,  do  you  never 
miss  your  Class  or  Band? 

3.  As  Preachers,  do  you  meet  ev- 
ery Society?  Also,  the  Leaders  and 
Bands  if  any  ? 

4.  As  Assistants,  have  you  thor- 
oughly considered  your  Office?  And 
do  you  make  a  conscience  of  exe- 
cuting every  part  of  it? 

These  Means  may  be  used  without 
fruit.  But  there  are  some  means, 
which  cannot;  namely  Watching, 
Denying  ourselves,  taking  up  our 
Cross,  Exercise  of  the  Presence  of 
God. 

1.  Do  you  steadily  watch  against 
the  World?  the  Devil?  Yourselves? 
Your  besetting  sin? 

2.  Do  you  deny  yourself  every  use- 
less Pleasure  of  Sense?  Imagina- 
tion? Honour?  Are  you  temperate 
in  ail  things?  Instance  in  Food.  Do 
you  use  only  that  kind  and  that  de- 
gree, which  is  best  both  for  your 
Body  and  Soul?  Do  you  see  the  ne- 
cessity of  this? 

3.  Do  you  eat  no  Flesh-Suppers? 
No  late  Suppers? 

4.  Do  you  eat  more  at  each  Meal 
than  is  necessary?  Are  you  not 
heavy  or  drowzy  after  Dinner? 

5.  Do  you  use  only  that  kind  and 
that  degree  of  Drink  which  is  best 
both  for  your  body  and  soul? 

6.  Do  you  drink  Water?  Why 
not?  Did  you  ever?  Why  did  you 
leave  it  off?  If  not  for  Health,  when 
will  you  begin  again  ?    To  day  ? 

7.  How  often  do  you  drink  Wine 
or  Ale?  Every  day?  Do  you  ^vant 
it? 

8.  Wherein  do  you  take  up  your 
ci-oss  daily?    D«  you  chearfuUy  bear 


578  The  First  Discipline     mid     The  L.arge  Minutes. 


your  Cross  (whatever  is  grievous  to 
Nature)  as  a  Gift  of  God,  and  labour 
to  profit  thereby  ? 

4.  Do  3'ou  endeavour  to  set  God  al- 
ways before  you?  To  see  his  Eye 
continually  fixt  upon  you?  Never 
can  you  use  these  Means  but  a  Bless- 
ing will  ensue.  And  the  more  you 
use  them,  the  more  you  will  grow  in 
Grace. 

Q.  67.  What  can  be  done  in  order 
to  a  closer  Union  of  our  Helpers  with 
each  other? 

A.  I.  Let  them  deeply  be  con- 
vinced of  the  absolute  Necessity  of 
it. 

2.  Let  them  pray  for  a  Desire  of 
Union. 

3.  Let  them  speak  freely  to  each 
Other. 

4.  When  they  meet,  let  them  never 
part  without  Prayer. 

5.  Let  them  beware  how  they  de- 
spise each  other's  Gifts. 

6.  Let  them  never  speak  slighting- 
ly of  each  other  in  any  kind. 

7.  Let  them  defend  one  another's 
Characters  in  every  thing,  so  far  as 
consists  with  Truth:  And 

8.  Let  them  labour,  in  Honour  each 
to  prefer  the  other  before  himself. 

Q.  68.  How  shall  we  try  those  who 
think  they  are  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  preach  ? 

A.  Inquire,  1.  Do  they  know  God 
as  a  pardoning  God.?  Have  they  the 
Love  of  God  abiding  in  them?  Do 
they  desire  to  seek  nothing  but  God? 
And  are  they  holy  in  all  manner  of 
Conversation?  2.  Have  they  Gt/fs 
(as  well  as  Grace}  for  the  Work? 
Have  they  (in  some  tolerable  Degree) 
a  clear,  sound  Understanding?  Have 
they  a  right  Judgment  in  the  Things 
of  God?  Have  they  a  just  Concep- 
tion of  Salvation  by  Faith  ?  And  has 
God  given  them  any  Degree  of  Ut- 


your  cross  (whatever  is  grievous  to 
nature)  as  a  Gift  of  God,  and  labour 
to  profit  thereby? 

9.  Do  you  endeavour  to  set  God  al- 
ways before  you?  To  see  his  eye 
continually  fixt  upon  you?  Never 
can  you  use  these  means  but  a  bless- 
ing will  ensue.  And  the  more  you 
use  them  the  more  will  you  grow  in 
grace. 

Q.  49.  What  can  be  done,  in  order 
to  a  closer  Union  of  our  Helpers 
with  each  other? 

A.I.  Let  them  be  deeply  convinced 
of  the  want  there  is  of  it  at  present, 
and  the  absolute  Necessity  of  it: 

2.  Let  them  pray  for  a  Desire  of 
Union: 

3.  Let  them  speak  freely  to  each 
other : 

4.  When  they  meet,  let  them  never 
part  without  Prayer: 

5.  Let  them  beware,  how  they  de- 
spise each  other's  Gifts: 

6.  Let  them  never  speak  slighting- 
ly of  each  other  in  any  kind: 

7.  Let  them  defend  one  another's 
Characters  in  every  thing,  so  far  as 
consists  with  truth  ;  And 

8.  Let  them  labour,  in  honour  each 
to  prefer  the  other  before  himself. 

Q.  50.  How  shall  we  try  those  who 
think  they  are  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  preach? 

A.  Enquire,  i.  Do  they  know  God 
as  a  pardoning  God?  Have  they  the 
Love  of  God  abiding  in  them?  Do 
they  desire  and  seek  nothing  but 
God?  And  are  they  holy  in  all  man- 
ner of  Conversation?  2.  Have  they 
Gifts,  (as  well  as  Grace)  for  the  work? 
Have  they  (in  some  tolerable  degree) 
a  clear,  sound  Understanding?  Have 
they  a  right  Judgment  in  the  things 
of  God?  Have  they  a  just  concep- 
tion of  Salvation  by  Faith  ?  And  has 
God  given  them  any  degree  of  Ut- 


The  Kirst  Discipline      and      The  Large  Minutes.  579 


terance?  Do  thej' speak  justly,  read- 
ily, clearly?  3.  Have  they  Fruit? 
Are  any  truly  convinced  of  Sin  and 
converted  to  God  by  their  Preach- 
ing? 

As  long  as  these  three  Marks  con- 
cur in  any  one,  we  believe  he  is 
called  of  God  to  preach.  These  we 
receive  as  sufficient  Proof,  that  he  is 
moved  thereto  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Q.  69.  What  Method  may  we  use 
in  receiving  a  New  Helper? 

A.  A  proper  Time  for  doing  this, 
is  at  a  Conference  after  solemn  Fast- 
ing and  Prayer. 

Every  Person  proposed  shall  then 
be  asked  (with  any  other  Questions 
which  may  be  thought  necessary  by 
the  Conference)  the  following,  viz. 

Have  jOM  Faith  in  Christ?  Are  you 
going  on  to  Perfection  ?  Do  you  ex- 
pect to  be  perfected  in  Love  in  this 
Life?  Are  you  groaning  after  it? 
Are  you  resolved  to  devote  yourself 
wholly  to  God  and  to  his  Work? 
Do  you  know  the  Methodist-Plan? 
Do  you  know  the  Rules  of  the  Soci- 
ety? Of  the  Bands?  Do  you  keep 
them?  Do  you  take  no  Drams?  Do 
you  constantly  attend  the  Sacrament? 
Have  you  read  the  Minutes  of  the 
Conference?  Are  you  willing  to  con- 
form to  them  ?  Have  you  considered 
the  Rules  of  a  Heifer?  Especially 
the  first,  tenth  and  twelfth?  Will 
you  keep  them  for  Conscience'  sake? 
Are  you  determined  to  employ  all 
your  Time  in  the  Work  of  God? 
Will  you  preach  every  Morning  at 
five  o'clock  wherever  you  can  have 
twenty  Hearers?  Will  you  endeav- 
our not  to  speak  too  long  or  too  loud  ? 
Will  you  diligently  instruct  the  Chil- 
dren in  every  Place?  Will  you  visit 
from  House  to  House  ?  Will  you  rec- 
ommend Fasting  both  by  Precept 
and  Example?    Are  you  in  Debt? 


terance  ?  Do  they  speak  justly,  readi- 
ly, clearly?  3.  Have  they  Fruit? 
Are  any  truly  convinced  of  sin,  and 
converted  to  God  by  their  Preach- 
ing? 

As  long  as  these  three  marks  con- 
cur in  any  one,  we  believe  he  is 
called  of  God  to  preach.  These  we 
receive  as  sufficient  proof,  that  he  is 
moved  thereto  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Q.  51.  What  Method  may  we  use 
in  receiving  a  New  Helper? 

A.  A  proper  time,  for  doing  this, 
is  at  a  Conference  after  solemn  Fast- 
ing and  Prayer. 

Every  person  proposed  is  then  to 
be  present;  and  each  of  them  may  be 
asked, 

"Have  you  Faith  in  Christ?  Are 
you  going  on  to  ferfection?  Do  you 
expect  to  be  perfected  in  love  in  this 
life?  Are  you  groaning  after  it? 
Are  you  resolved  to  devote  yourself 
wholly  to  God  and  to  his  work?  Do 
you  know  the  Methodist-Plan?  Have 
you  read  the  Plain  Account?  The 
Appeals?  Do  you  know  the  Rules  of 
the  Society?  Of  the  Bands?  Do 
you  keep  them?  Do  you  take  no 
Snuff?  Tobacco?  Drams?  Do  you 
constantly  attend  the  Church  and 
Sacrament?  Have  you  read  the 
utes  of  the  Conference?  Are  you  will- 
ing to  conform  to  them?  Have  you 
considered  the  Rules  of  an  Heifer? 
Especially  the  first,  tenth  and  twelfth  ? 
Will  you  keep  them  for  Conscience' 
sake?  Are  you  determined  to  em- 
ploy allyonr  time  in  the  work  of  God? 
Will  you  preach  every  Morning  and 
Evening:  Endeavouring  not  to  speak 
too  long  or  too  loud?  Will  you  dili- 
gently instruct  the  Children  in  every 
place?  Will  you  visit  from  house  to 
house?  Will  you  recommend  Fast- 
ing, both  by  Precept  and  Example? 

Are  you  in  Debt? 


580  The  First  Discipline      and      The  Large  Minutes. 


We  may  then,  if  he  gives  Satisfac- 
tion, receive  him  as  a  Probationer  by 
giving  him  the  Minutes  of  the  Con- 
ference inscribed  thus; 

To  A.  B. 

"  You  think  it  you  Duty  to  call 
Sinners  to  Repentance.  Make  full 
Proof  hereof,  and  we  shall  rejoice  to 
receive  you  as  a  Fellow  Labourer." 

Let  him  then  read  and  carefully 
weigh  what  is  contained  therein,  that 
if  he  has  any  Doubt,  it  may  be  re- 
moved. ' 

Observe  1  Takings;/  7V«a/ is  entire- 
ly different  from  admitting  a  Preach- 
er. One  on  Trial,  may  be  either  ad- 
mitted or  rejected  without  doing  him 
any  wrong.  Otherwise  it  would  be 
no  Trial  at  all.  Let  every  Assistant 
explain  this  to  them  that  are  on 
Trial. 

After  two  Years'  Probation,  being 
recommended  by  the  Assistant  and 
examined  by  the  Conference,  he  may 
be  received  into  full  Connexion  by 
giving  him  the  Minutes  inscribed 
thus: 

"  As  long  as  you  freely  consent  to, 
and  earnestly  endeavour  to  walk  by 
these  Rules,  we  shall  rejoice  to  ac- 
knowledge you  as  a  Fellow-Labour- 
er." 

Mean  time  let  none  preach  or  ex- 
hort in  any  of  our  Societies  without 
a  Note  of  Permission  from  the  As- 
sistant: Let  every  Preacher  or  Ex- 
horter  take  care  to  have  this  renewed 
yearly:  And  let  every  Assistant  in- 
sist upon  it. 

Q.  70.  What  is  the  Method  where- 
in we  usually  proceed  in  our  Confer- 
encei? 

A.  We  inquire, 

I.  What  Preachers  are  admitted f 
Who  remain  on  Trial ? 
Who  are  admitted  on  Trial? 
Who  desist  from  Travelling? 


Wt  may  then  receive  him  as  a 
Probationer  by  giving  him  the  Min- 
utes of  the  Conference  inscribed 
thus: 

To      A.  B. 

"You  think  it  your  Duty  to  call 
Sinners  to  Repentance.  Make  full 
proof  hereof,  and  we  shall  rejoice  to 
receive  you  as  a  Fellow-labourer. 

Let  him  then  read,  and  carefully 
weigh  what  is  contained  therein,  that 
if  he  has  any  Doubt,  it  may  be  re- 
moved. 

Observe!  Taking  on  trial  is  en- 
tirely different  from  admitting  a 
Preacher.  One  on  trial  may  be  either 
admitted  or  rejected,  without  doing 
him  any  wrong.  Otherwise  it  would 
be  no  trial  at  all.  Let  every  Assist- 
ant explain  this  to  them  that  are  on 
trial. 

At  the  next  Conference,  if  recom- 
mended by  the  Assistant,  he  may 
be  received  into  full  connexion,  by 
giving  him  the  Minutes  inscribed 
thus: 

"  As  long  as  you  freely  consent  to, 
and  earnestly  endeavour  to  walk  by 
these  Rules,  we  shall  rejoice  to  ac- 
knowledge you  as  a  Fellow-labour- 
er." 

Mean  time  let  none  exhort  in  any 
of  our  Societies,  without  a  Note  of 
Permission  from  the  Assistant:  Let 
every  Exhortertake  care  to  have  this 
renewed  yearly:  And  let  every  As- 
sistant insist  upon  it. 

Q.  52.  What  is  the  Method  wherein 
we  usually  proceed  in  our  Confer- 
ences.? 

A.  We  enquire, 

I.  What  Preachers  are  admitted? 
Who  remain  on  trial? 
Who  are  admitted  on  trial? 
Who  desist  from  travelling? 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  581 


2.  Are  there  any  Objections  to  any 
of  the  Preachers?  Who  are  named 
one  by  one. 

3.  How  are  the  Preachers  stationed 
this  Year? 

4.  What  Numbers  are  in  the  Soci- 
ety? 


5.  What  wa«  contributed  for  the 

Contingent  Expenses? 

6.  How  was  this  expended? 

7.  What  is  contributed  toward  the 
Fund  for  the  Superannuated  Preach- 
ers and  the  Widows  and  Orphans  of 
the  Preachers  ? 

8.  What  Demands  are  there  upon 
It? 

9.  How  many  Preachers'  Wives  are 
to  be  provided  for?  By  what  Cir- 
cuits and  in  what  Proportion? 

10.  Where  and  wlien  may  our  next 
Conference  begin? 

Q.  71.  What  Provision  can  we 
make  for  a  proper  Supply  of  Preach- 
ers in  the  Circuits  during  the  Sitting 
of  the  Conference? 

A.  Let  as  many  Local  Preachers 
as  are  necessary,  be  provided  by  the 
Assistant  in  every  Circuit,  as  far  as 
possible;  and  let  them  be  paid  in 
Proportion  to  their  Work  as  Travel- 
ling-Preachers out  of  the  Yearly  Col- 
lection. 

Q.  72.  How  can  we  provide  for 
Superannuated  Preachers  and  the 
Widows  and  Orphans  of  Preachers? 


A.  I.  Let  every  Travelling-Preach- 
er contribute  two  Dollars  yearly-  at 
the  Conference. 


2.  Are  there  any  Objections  to  any 
of  the  Preachers?  Who  are  named 
one  by  one. 

3.  How  are  the  Preachers  stationed 
this  year? 

4.  What  numbers  are  in  the  Socie- 
ty? 

5.  What  is  the  Kingsn'ood  Collec- 
tion ? 

6.  What  Boys  are  received  this 
year  ? 

7.  What  Girls  are  assisted? 

8.  What  is  contributed  for  the  Con- 
tingent Expences? 

9.  How  was  this  expended? 

10.  What  is  contributed  toward  the 
Fund,  for  superannuated  and  super- 
numerary Preachers? 

11.  What  demands  are  there  upon 

it? 

12.  How  many  Preachers'  Wives 
are  to  be  provided  for?  By  what  So- 
cieties? 

13.  Where  and  when  may  our  next 
Conference  begin? 


Q.  53.  How  can  we  provide  for 
Superannuated  and  supernumerary 
Preachers? 

A.  Those  who  can  preach  four  or 
five  times  a  week,  are  supernumera- 
ry Preachers.  As  for  those  who 
cannot, 

I.  Let  every  travelling  Preacher 
contribute  half  a  Guinea  yearly  at 
the  Conference: 


582  The  First  Disciplme     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


2.  Let  every  one  when  first  admit- 
ted as  a  Travelling-Preacher,  pay 
twenty  Shillings  (Pennsylvania-Cur- 
rency.) 

3.  Let  this  Money  be  lodged  in  the 
Hands  of  the  Treasurers. 


4.  Let  there  be  three  Treasurers; 
three  Clerks,  each  of  whom  shall 
keep  a  separate  Account;  and  three 
Inspectors,  who  shall  annually  lay 
before  the  Conference  an  exact  State 
of  the  Fund. 

5.  Let  these  Nine  form  a  Commit- 
tee for  the  Management  of  the  Fund. 
Three  of  whom  shall  be  competent 
to  proceed  on  any  Business,  provided 
one  be  a  Treasurer,  another  an  In- 
spector, and  a  third  a  Clerk. 

6.  Out  of  this  Fund  let  Provision 
be  made  first  for  the  Worn-out 
Preachers,  and  then  for  the  Widows 
and  Children  of  those  that  are  dead. 

7.  Every  Worn-out  Preacher  shall 
receive,  it  he  wants  it,  twenty-four 
Pounds  a  Year  (Pennsylvania-Cur- 
rency.) 

8.  Every  Widow  of  a  Preacher 
shall  receive  yearly,  if  she  wants 
it,  during  her  Widowhood,  twenty 
Pounds. 

9.  Every  Child  of  a  Preacher  shall 
receive  once  for  all,  if  he  wants  it, 
twenty  Pounds. 

10.  But  none  shall  be  intitled  to 
any  Thing  from  this  Fund,  till  he  has 
paid  fifty  Shillings. 

11.  Nor  any  who  neglects  paying 
his  Subscription  for  three  Years 
together,  unless  he  be  sent  by  the 
Conference  out  of  these  United 
States. 


2.  Let  every  one  when  first  admit- 
ted as  a  travelling  Preacher  pay  a 
Guinea: 

3.  Let  this  be  lodged  in  the  hands 
of  the  Stewards: 

4.  The  present  Stewards  are,  John 
Murlin,  and  John  Paw  son. 


5.  Out  of  this  let  provision  be 
made  first  for  the  worn-out  Preach- 
ers, and  then  for  the  Widows  and 
Children  of  those  that  are  dead. 

6.  Every  worn-out  Preacher  shall 
receive,  if  he  wants  it,  at  least  ten 
Pounds  a  year. 

7.  Every  Widow  of  a  Preacher 
shall  receive  yearly,  (if  she  wants  it) 
during  her  Widowhood,  a  sum  not 
usually  exceeding  ten  Pounds. 

8.  Every  Child  left  by  a  Preacher 
shall  receive  once  for  all,  a  sum  not 
usually  exceeding  ten  Pounds. 

9.  But  none  is  entitled  to  any  thing 
from  this  Fund,  till  he  has  subscrbed 
two  Guineas. 

10.  Nor  any  who  neglects  paying 
his  Subscription  for  four  years  to- 
gether. 


II.  Let  every  Preacher  who  does 
not  bring  or  send  his  Subscription  to 
the  Conference,  be  fined  two  shil- 
lings and  sixpence. 


The  Pirst  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  583 


12.  Let  the  Fund  never  be  reduced 
to  less  than  a  hundred  Pounds. 


13.  Let  every  Assistant,  as  far  as 
possible,  bring  to  the  Conference  the 
Contribution  of  every  Preacher  left 
behind  in  his  Circuit 


12.  Let  the  fund  never  be  reduced 
to  less  than  an  hundred  pounds. 

13.  Let  a  Committee  be  named  to 
see  these  Rules  duly  executed.  The 
present  Committee  are, 

Christopher  Hopper. 
Robert  Roberts. 
Thomas  Coke. 
Thomas  Hanby. 
John  Allen. 
Thomas  Lee. 
Duncan  Wright. 
Thomas  Taylor. 
William  Thompson. 
Thomas  Rankin. 

14.  Let  an  exact  account  of  all  Re- 
ceits  and  Disbursements  be  produced 
at  the  Conference. 

Let  every  Assistant  bring  to  the 
Conference,  the  contribution  of  every 
Preacher  in  his  Circuit. 

Q.  54.  Are  not  many  of  the  Preach- 
ers' Wives  still  straitened  for  the 
Necessaries  of  Life.' 

A.  Some  certainly  have  been.  To 
prevent  this  for  time  to  come, 

I.  Let  every  Circuit  either  pro- 
vide each  with  a  Lodging,  Coals  and 
Candles,  or  allow  her  fifteen  pounds 
a  year. 

.  Letthe  Assistant  take  this  money 
at  the  quarterly  Meeting,  before  any 
thing  else  be  paid  out  of  it. 

Q.  55.  How  can  we  account  for 
the  decrease  of  the  work  of  God  in 
some  Circuits  both  this  year  and  the 
last? 

A.  It  may  be  owing  either  i.  To 
the  want  of  Zeal  and  Exactness  in 
the  Assistant,  occasioning  Want  of 
Discipline  throughout:  Or  2.  To 
want  of  Life  and  Diligence  in  the 
Preachers;  or  3.  To  our  People's  los- 
ing the  Life  of  God,  and  sinking  into 
the  Spirit  of  the  World. 

It  may  be  owinsr  farther,  to  the 


584  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


Q.  73.  What  can  be  done  in  order 
to  revive  the  Work  of  God  where  it 
is  decayed  ? 


1.  Let  both  Assistants  and  Preach- 
ers be  conscientiously  exact  in  the 
whole  Methodist  Discipline. 

2.  See  that  no  Circuit  be  at  any 
Time  without  Preachers.  Therefore 
let  no  Preacher  who  does  not  attend 
the  Conference,  leave  the  Circuit  at 
that  Time  on  any  Pretence  whatever. 
This  is  the  most  improper  Time  in 
the  whole  Year.  Let  every  Assist- 
ant see  to  this,  and  require  each  of 
these  to  remain  in  the  Circuit  till 
the  New  Preacher  come. 


3.  Wherever  you  can,  appoint 
Prayer-Meetings,  and  particularly  on 
Friday. 

4.  Let  a  Fast  be  published  at  every 
Quarterly   Meeting  for  the  Friday 


want  of  more  Field-preaching,  and  of 
trying  more  new  Places:  And  now 
in  particular.  To  their  senseless  Prej- 
udice  against  the  King,  and  speak- 
ing evil  of  dignities.  To  stop  this 
flame,  let  none  preach  with  us,  who 
speak  evil  of  our  Governors,  or 
prophesy  evil  to  the  nation.  Let 
every  Assistant  take  care  of  this. 

Q.  56.  But  are  all  our  Assistants 
themselves  clear  of  this? 

A.  Who  can  testify  the  contrary.' 
No  one. 

Q.  57.  What  can  be  done,  in  order 
to  revive  the  work  of  God  where  it 
is  decayed.' 

A.  I.  Let  every  Preacher  read 
carefully  over  the  Life  of  David 
Brainard.  Let  us  be  followers  of  hiniy 
as  he  was  of  Christ,  in  absolute  Self- 
devotion,  in  total  Deadness  to  the 
World,  and  in  fervent  Love  to  God 
and  man.  Let  us  but  secure  this 
point,  and  the  World  and  the  Devil 
must  fall  under  our  feet. 

2.  Let  both  Assistants  and  Preach- 
ers be  conscientiously  exact  in  the 
whole  Methodist  Discipline. 

3.  See  that  no  Circuit  be  at  any 
time  without  Preachers.  Therefore 
let  no  Preacher  who  does  not  attend 
the  Conference,  leave  the  Circuit,  at 
that  time,  on  any  pretence  whatever. 
This  is  the  most  improper  time  in  the 
whole  year.  Let  every  Assistant  see 
to  this,  and  require  each  of  these  to 
remain  in  the  Circuit,  till  the  New 
Preachers  come. 

Let  not  all  the  Preachers  in  any 
Circuit  come  to  the  Conference. 

Let  those  who  do  come,  set  out  as 
late  and  return  as  soon  as  possible. 

4.  Wherever  you  can,  appoint 
Prayer-Meetings,  and  particularly  on 
Friday. 

5.  Let  a  Fast  be  observed  in  all 
our  Societies,  on  the  last  Friday  in 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  585 


following.  And  let  a  Memorandum 
of  it  be  written  on  all  the  Class-Pa- 
pers. 

5.  Be  active  in  dispersing  Mr.  Wes- 
lefs  Books.  Every  Assistant  may 
beg  Money  of  the  Rich  to  buy  Books 
for  the  Poor. 


6.  Strongly  and  explicitly  exhort 
all  Believers  to  go  on  to  Perfection. 
That  we  ma.y  all  speak  the  same  Thing, 
we  ask  once  for  all,  Shall  we  defend 
this  Perfection,  or  give  it  up?  We 
&11  agree  to  defend  it,  meaning  there- 
by (as  we  did  from  the  Beginning) 
Salvation  from  all  Sin  by  the  Love 
of  God  and  Man  filling  our  Heart. 
The  Papists  say  "This  cannot  be  at- 
tained till  we  have  been  refined  by 
the  Fire  of  Purgatory."  The  Calvin- 
ists  say  "Nay,  it  will  be  attained  as 
soon  as  the  Soul  and  Body  part." 
The  Old  Methodists  say  "  It  may  be 
attained  before  we  die :  a  Moment 
after  is  too  late."  Is  it  so  or  no? 
We  are  all  agreed,  we  may  be  saved 
from  all  Sin  before  Death.'  The  Sub- 
stance then  is  settled.  But  as  to  the 
Circumstance,  is  the  Change  gradual 
or  instantaneous?  It  is  both  the  one 
and  the  other.  "  But  should  we  in 
Preaching  insist  both  on  one  and  the 
other?"  Certainly  we  must  insist 
on  the  gradual  Change;  and  that 
earnestly  and  continually.  And  are 
there  not  Reasons  why  we  should  in- 
sist on  the  instantaneous  also  ?  If  there 
be  such  a  blessed  Change  before 
Death,  should  we  not  encourage  all 
Believers  to  expect  it?  And  the 
rather,  because  constant  Experience 
shews,  the  more  earnestly  they  ex- 
pect this,  the  more  swiftly  and  stead- 
ily does  the  gradual  Work  of  God  go 


September,  and  on  the  Friday  after 
New  Years-day,  after  Lady-day,  and 
after  Midsummer-day. 

6.  Be  more  active  in  dispersing  the 
Books,  particularly  the  Sermon  on 
the  Good  Siexvard,  on  Ind-welling  Sin, 
the  Repentance  of  Believers,  and  the 
Scripture-  Way  of  Salvation.  Every 
Assistant  may  give  away  small  tracts. 
And  he  may  beg  money  of  the  rich 
to  buy  books  for  the  poor. 

7.  Strongly  and  explicitly  exhort 
all  Believers,  to  go  on  to  perfection. 
That  we  may  all  speak  the  same  thing, 
I  ask  once  for  all.  Shall  we  defend 
this  Perfection,  or  give  it  up.'  You 
all  agree  to  defend  it,  meaning  there- 
by, (as  we  did  from  the  beginning) 
Salvation  from  all  sin,  by  the  Love 
of  God  and  Man  filling  our  heart. 
The  Papists  say,  "This  cannot  be  at- 
tained, till  we  have  been  refined  by 
the  fire  of  Purgatory."  The  Calvin- 
ists  say,  "  Nay,  it  will  be  attained  as 
soon  as  the  Soul  and  Body  part." 
The  Old  Methodists  say,  "  It  may  be 
attained  before  we  die  :  a  moment  after 
is  too  late."  Is  it  so  or  no?  You  are 
all  agreed,  we  may  be  saved  from  all 
sin  before  death.  The  substance  then 
is  settled.  But,  as  to  the  Circum- 
stance, is  the  Change  gradual  or  in- 
stantaneous? It  is  both  the  one  and 
the  other.  From  the  moment  we  are 
justified,  there  may  be  a  gradual 
Sanctification,  a  growing  in  grace,  a 
daily  advance  in  the  knowledge  and 
love  of  God.  And  if  sin  cease  before 
Death,  there  must,  in  the  nature 
of  the  thing,  be  an  Instantaneous 
Change.  There  must  be  a  last  mo- 
ment wherein  it  does  exist,  and  a 
first  moment  wherein  it  does  not. 
"  But  should  we  in  Preaching  insist 
both  on  one  and  the  other?"  Cer- 
tainly we  must  insist  on  the  gradual 
Change;  and  that  earnestly  and  con- 


586  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


on  in  the  Soul;  the  more  watchful 
they  are  against  all  Sin;  the  more 
careful  to  grow  in  Grace;  the  more 
zealous  of  good  Works,  and  the  more 
punctual  in  their  Attendance  on  all 
the  Ordinances  of  God.  (Whereas 
just  the  contrary  Effects  are  observed, 
whenever  this  Expectation  ceases.) 
They  are  saved  by  Hope,  by  this  Hope 
of  a  total  Change,  with  a  gradually- 
increasing  Salvation.  Destroy  this 
Hope,  and  that  Salvation  stands  etill, 
or  rather  decreases  daily.  Therefore 
whoever  would  advance  the  gradual 
Change  in  Believers,  should  strongly 
insist  on  the  instantaneous. 


tinually.  And  are  there  not  reasons 
why  we  should  insist  on  the  In- 
stantaneous also?  If  there  be  such  a 
blessed  Change  before  Death,  should 
we  not  encourage  all  Believers  to  ex- 
pect it?  And  the  rather,  because 
constant  experience  shews,  the  more 
earnestly  they  expect  this,  the  more 
swiftly  and  steadily  does  the  gradual 
work  of  God  go  on  in  their  soul: 
The  more  watchful  they  are  against 
all  sin;  the  more  careful  to  grow  in 
grace,  the  more  zealous  of  good 
works,  and  the  more  punctual  in 
their  attendance  on  all  the  ordinances 
of  God.  (Whereas  just  the  contrary 
effects  are  observed,  whenever  this 
expectation  ceases.)  They  are  saved 
by  hope,  by  this  hope  of  a  total  Change, 
with  a  gradually-increasing  salva- 
tion. Destroy  this  hope,  and  that 
Salvation  stands  still  or  rather  de- 
creases daily.  Therefore  whoever 
would  advance  the  gradual  Change 
in  Believers,  should  strongly  insist 
on  the  Instantaneous. 

Q.  58.  What  can  be  done,  to  in- 
crease the  work  of  God  in  Scotland} 

A.  I.  Preach  abroad  as  much  as 
possible: 

2.  Try  every  town  and  village: 

3.  Visit  every  member  of  the  So- 
ciety at  home: 

4.  Let  the  Preachers  at  Dundee  and 
Arbrot/i,  not  stay  at  either  place  more 
than  a  week  at  a  time: 

5.  Let  each  of  them  once  a  quarter 
visit  Perth,  Dunkeld,  and  the  inter- 
mediate villages. 

Q.  59.  What  can  be  done  in  order 
to  the  future  Union  of  the  Metho- 
dists ? 

A.  I.  It  has  long  been  my  desire, 
that  all  those  Ministers  of  our  Church 
who  believe  and  preach  Salvation  by 
Faith,  might  cordially  agree  between 
themselves,  and  not  hinder  but  help 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  587 


one  another.  After  occasionally 
pressing  this  in  private  Conversa- 
tion, wherever  I  had  opportunity,  I 
wrote  down  my  thoughts  upon  the 
head,  and  sent  them  to  each  of  them 
in  a  Letter.  Out  of  almost  Sixty  to 
whom  I  wrote,  only  three  vouchsafed 
me  an  Answer.  So  I  give  this  up. 
They  are  a  rope  of  sand:  And  such 
they  will  continue. 

2.  But  it  is  otherwise  with  the 
travelling  Preachers  in  our  connex- 
ion. You  are  at  present  One  Body. 
You  act  in  concert  with  each  other, 
and  by  united  counsels.  And  now  is 
the  time  to  consider  what  can  be 
done,  in  order  to  continue  this  Un- 
ion. Indeed  as  long  as  I  live,  there 
will  be  no  great  difficulty:  I  am, 
under  God,  a  Center  of  Union  to  all 
our  travelling  3.S  well  as  local  Preach- 
ers. They  all  know  me  and  my 
communication.  They  love  me  for 
my  works'  sake:  And  therefore, 
were  it  only  out  of  legard  to  me,  they 
will  continue  connected  with  each 
other.  But  by  what  means  may  this 
Connexion  be  preserved,  when  it 
pleases  God  to  remove  me  from  you? 
•  3.  I  take  it  for  granted,  it  cannot  be 

preserved  by  any  means,  between 
those  who  have  not  a  single  eye: 
Those  that  aim  at  any  thing  but  the 
Glory  of  God  in  the  salvation  of  men ; 
who  desire  or  seek  any  earthly  thing, 
whether  Honour,  Profit  or  Ease,  will 
not  remain  in  the  connexion:  It  will 
not  answer  their  design.  Some  of 
these,  perhaps  a  Fourth  part  of  the 
whole  number,  will  procure  Prefer- 
ment in  the  Church:  Others  will 
turn  Independents  and  get  separate 
Congregations.  Lay  your  accounts 
with  this.  And  be  not  surprized,  if 
some  be  among  them,  whom  you 
now  least  of  all  suspect. 

4.  But  what  method  can  be  taken  to 


588  The  First  Discipline     and      The  Large  Minutes. 


preserve  a  firm  Union  between  those 
who  chuse  to  remain  together? 

Perhaps  you  might  take  some  such 
steps  as  these. 

On  notice  of  my  Death,  let  all  the 
Preachers  in  Britain  and  Ireland  re- 
pair to  London  within  six  weeks. 

Let  them  seek  God  by  solemn 
Fasting  and  Prayer. 

Let  them  draw  up  Articles  of 
Agreement,  to  be  signed  by  those 
who  chuse  to  act  in  concert. 

Let  those  -who  do  not  chuse  it,  be  dis- 
mist  in  the  most  friendly  manner  pos- 
sible. 

Let  them  chuse  by  votes,  a  Com- 
mittee of  Three,  Five  or  Seven,  one 
of  them  to  be  Moderator : 

Let  this  Committee  propose  Preach- 
ers to  be  tried,  admitted,  or  excluded; 
fix  the  place  of  each  Preacher  for  the 
ensuing  year,  and  the  time  of  the 
next  Conference. 

5.  Can  any  thing  be  done  now,  in 
order  to  lay  a  foundation  for  this 
future  Union.'  Would  it  not  be  well, 
for  any  that  are  willing  to  sign  some 
Articles  of  Agreement,  before  God 
calls  me  hence?  Suppose  the  fol- 
lowing: 

"We  whose  names  are  under-writ- 
ten, being  thoroughly  convinced  of 
the  Necessity  of  a  close  Union  be- 
tween those  whom  God  is  pleased  to 
use  as  instruments  in  this  glorious 
Work,  in  order  to  preserve  this  Un- 
ion between  ourselves,  are  resolved, 
God  being  our  Helper, 

L  To  devote  ourselves  entirely  to 
God:  denying  ourselves,  taking  up 
our  cross  daily,  steadily  aiming  at 
one  thing,  to  save  our  own  souls,  and 
them  that  hear  us: 

IL  To  preach  the  old  Methodist- 
Doctrines,  and  no  other,  contained  in 
the  Minutes  of  the  Conferences: 

III.  To  observe  and  inforce  the 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Layge  Minutes.  589 


whole  Methodist  Discipline,  laid  down 
in  the  said  Minutes. 

Q.  60.  How  many  Circuits  are 
there  now  ? 

A.  Of  America  we  have  no  late  ac- 
count. There  are  six  and  forty  Cir- 
cuits in  England,  four  in  Scotland, 
and  fourteen  in  Ireland. 

Q.  61.  Are  our  Preaching-houses 
safe? 

A.  Not  all :  for  some  of  them  are 
not  settled  on  Trustees.  Several  of 
the  Trustees  for  others  are  dead. 

Q.  62.  What  then  is  to  be  done.? 

A.  I.  Let  those  who  have  debts  on 
any  of  the  Houses  give  a  Bond,  to 
settle  them  as  soon  as  they  are  in- 
demnified. 

2.  Let  the  surviving  Trustees 
chuse  others  without  delay,  by  in- 
dorsing their  deed  thus: 

"  We  the  remaining  Trustees  of 
the   Methodist  Preaching-house  in 

 ,  do  according  to  the  power 

vested  in   us  by  this  deed,  chuse 

 to  be  Trustees  of  the  said 

house,  in  the  place  of  

Witness  our  hands  ." 

N.  B.  The  Deed  must  have  three 
New  Stamps,  and  must  be  inrolled  in 
Chancery  within  six  months. 

Q.  63.  In  what  form  may  an  House 
be  settled.? 

A.  In  the  following,  which  was 
drawn  by  three  of  the  most  eminent 
Lawyers  in  London.  Whoever  there- 
fore objects  to  it,  only  betrays  his 
own  Ignorance. 

"  This  Indenture  made  

  between  Benjamin  Heap,  of 

 ,  in  the  County  of  ,  on  the 

one  part,  and  Thomas  Philips,  Hatter, 
&c.  on  the  other  part,  WITNESSETH, 
That  in  consideration  of  five  Shil- 
lings, lawful  money  of  Great  Britain, 
by  the  said  T.  P.  &c.  to  the  said  B.  H. 
truly  paid,  before  the  sealing  and  de- 


59^  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


livering  hereof  (the  receit  whereof 
the  said  B.  H.  doth  hereby  acknowl- 
edge) and  for  divers  other  considera- 
tions him  thereunto  moving;  the  said 
B.  H.  hath  granted,  bargained  and 
sold,  and  by  these  Presents  doth  bar- 
gain and  sell,  unto  the  said  T.  P.  &c. 
their  Heirs  and  Assigns  for  ever,  All 
that  lately  erected  House  or  Tene- 
ment, with  the  Yard  thereunto  ad- 
joining, situate  in  afore- 
said, now  in  the  tenure  or  occupation 

of  ,  together  with  all  the  ways, 

drains  and  privileges  to  the  said 
premises  appertaining,  and  all  the 
profits  thereof,  with  all  the  right, 
title  and  interest  in  law  and  equity: 
To  HAVE  AND  TO  HOLD,  the  Said 
House,  Yard,  and  other  premises,  to 
the  said  T.  P.  &c.  their  Heirs  and 
Assigns  for  ever.  Nevertheless 
upon  special  trust  and  confidence, 
and  to  the  intent  that  they  and  the 
Survivors  of  them,  and  the  Trustees 
for  the  time  being,  do  and  shall  per- 
mit John  Wesley,  of  the  City  Road, 
London,  Clerk,  and  such  other  per- 
sons as  he  shall  from  time  to  time  ap- 
point, and  at  all  times,  during  his 
natural  Life,  and  no  other  persons,  to 
have  and  enjoy  the  free  use  and 
benefit  of  the  said  premises;  that  the 
said  John  Wesley,  and  such  other  per- 
sons as  he  appoints,  may  therein 
preach  and  expound  God's  holy 
Word:  And  after  his  decease,  upon 
farther  trust  and  confidence,  and  to 
the  intent  that  the  said  Trustees  and 
the  Survivors  of  them,  and  the  Trust- 
ees for  the  time  being,  do  and  shall 
permit  Charles  Wesley,  late  of  Christ 
Church,  Oxford,  Clerk,  and  such 
other  persons  as  he  shall  from  time 
to  time  appoint,  during  his  Life,  and 
no  other,  to  have  and  enjoy  the  said 
premises  for  the  purposes  aforesaid. 
And  after  his  decease,  upon  farther 


The  Fh'st  Discipline      and      The  Large  Minutes.  591 


trust  and  confidence,  and  to  the  in- 
tent that  the  said  T.  P.  &c.  or  the 
major  part  of  them,  or  the  Survivors 
of  them,  and  the  major  part  of  the 
Trustees  of  the  said  premises  for  the 
time  being,  shall  from  time  to  time, 
and  at  all  times  for  ever,  permit  such 
persons  as  shall  be  appointed  at  the 
yearly  Conference  of  the  People 
called  Methodists,  in  Londori,  Bristol 
or  Leeds,  and  no  others,  to  have  and 
to  enjoy  the  said  premises,  for  the 
purposes  aforesaid :  Provided  always, 
that  the  said  persons  preach  no 
other  Doctrine  than  is  contained  in 
Mr.  Wesley's  Notes  upon  the  New- 
Testament,  and  four  Volumes  of  Ser- 
mons: And  upon  farther  trust  and 
confidence,  that  as  often  as  any  of 
these  Trustees,  or  the  Trustees  for 
the  time  being,  shall  die,  or  cease  to 
be  a  member  of  the  Society  com- 
monly called  Methodists,  the  rest  of 
the  said  Trustees,  or  of  the  Trustees 
for  the  time  being,  as  soon  as  con- 
veniently may  be,  shall  and  may 
chuse  another  Trustee  or  Trustees, 
in  order  to  keep  up  the  number  of 

 Trustees  for  ever.  In  witness 

whereof  the  said  B.  H.  hath  here- 
unto set  his  hand  and  seal,  the  day 
and  year  above-written." 

In  this  form  the  Proprietors  of  the 
House  are  to  make  it  over,  to  five, 
seven  or  nine  Trustees. 

Q.  64.  But  is  this  form  a  safe  one.' 
Should  we  not  have  the  opinion  of  a 
Council  upon  it.' 

A.  I  think  this  would  be  throwing 
money  away:  i.  Because  this  form 
was  drawn  up  by  three  eminent 
Counsellors:  but  2.  It  is  the  way  of 
almost  every  Lawyer  to  blame  what 
another  has  dotie.  Therefore  you 
cannot  at  s^ll  infer,  that  they  think  a 
thing  wrong,  because  they  say  so.  3. 
If  they  did  in  reality  think  it  wrong. 


592  The  JFirst  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


Q.  74.  Is  any  Thing  advisable 
with  regard  to  Building? 

A.  Let  all  our  Chapels  be  built 
plain  and  decent;  but  not  more  ex- 
pensively than  is  absolutely  unavoida- 
ble: Otherwise  the  Necessity  of  rais- 
ing the  Money  will  make  Rich  Men 
necessary  to  us.  But  if  so,  we  must 
be  dependent  upon  them,  yea,  and 
governed  by  them.  And  then  fare- 
well to  the  Methodist-Discioline,  if 
not  Doctrine  too. 


this  would  not  prove  it  was  so.  4.  If 
there  was,  (which  I  do  not  believe) 
some  defect  therein,  who  would  go 
to  law  with  the  Body  of  Methodists!' 
But  5.  If  they  did,  would  any  Court 
in  England  put  them  out  of  posses- 
sion ?  Especially  when  the  intent  of 
the  deed  was  plain  and  undeniable. 

Q.  65.  Is  any  thing  farther  advisa- 
ble with  regard  to  Building.'' 

A.  I.  Build  all  Preaching-houses, 
where  the  ground  will  permit,  in  the 
Octogan  form.  It  is  best  for  the 
voice,  and  on  many  accounts  more 
commodious  than  any  other.  2. 
Why  should  not  any  Octogan  House 
be  built  after  the  model  of  Tarm? 
Any  Square  House,  after  the  model 
of  Batk  or  Scarborough  P  Can  we 
find  any  better  model?  3.  Let  the 
Roof  rise  only  one  third  of  its 
breadth:  this  is  the  true  proportion. 
4.  Have  Doors  and  Windows  enough: 
And  let  all  the  Windows  be  Sashes, 
opening  downward:  5.  Let  ther/C 
be  no  Chinese  Paling,  and  no  Tub- 
Pulpit,  but  a  square  Projection  with 
a  long  Seat  behind:  6.  Let  there  be 
no  Pews  and  no  Backs  to  the  Seats, 
which  should  have  Isles  on  each 
side,  and  be  parted  in  the  middle  by 
a  rail  running  all  along,  to  divide  the 
Menfrom  the  Women  :  Justasat^a/A. 
7.  Let  all  Preaching-houses  be  built 
plain  and  decent;  but  not  more  ex- 
pensively than  is  absolutely  una- 
voidable: Otherwise  the  necessity 
of  raising  money  will  make  Rich 
men  necessary  to  us.  But  if  so,  we 
must  be  dependent  upon  them,  yea 
and  governed  by  them.  And  then 
farewel  to  the  Methodist  Discipline, 
if  not  Doctrine  too.  8.  Wherever  a 
Preaching-house  is  built,  see  that 
Lodgings  for  the  Preachers  be  built 


Q.  75.  Is  there  any  Exception  to      Q.  66.  Is  there  any  Exception  to 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  593 


the  Rule  "Let  the  Men  and  Women 
sit  apart?" 

A.  There  is'  no  Exception.  Let 
them  sit  apart  in  all  our  Chapels. 


Q.  76.  But  is  there  not  a  worse  In- 
decency than  this,  Talking  in  the 
Chapels  before  and  after  Service? 
How  shall  this  be  cured? 

A.  Let  all  the  Ministers  and  Preach- 
ers join  as  one  Man,  and  enlarge  on 
the  Impropriety  of  talking  before  or 
after  Service,  and  strongly  exhort 
them  To  do  it  no  more.  In  three 
Months,  if  we  are  in  earnest,  this  vile 
Practice  will  be  banished  out  of  every 
Methodist-Congregation.  Let  none 
stop  till  he  has  carried  his  Point. 


38 


the  Rule,  "  Let  the  Men  and  Women 
sit  apart?  " 

A.  In  those  Galleries  where  they 
have  always  sat  together,  they  may 
do  so  still.  But  let  them  sit  apart 
every  where  below,  and  in  all  New- 
Erected  Galleries. 

Q.  67.  But  how  can  we  secure  their 
sitting  apart  here  ? 

A.  I  must  do  it  myself.  If  I  come 
into  any  New  House,  and  see  the 
men  and  women  together,  I  will  im- 
mediately go  out.  I  hereby  give 
public  notice  of  this.  Pray  let  it  be 
observed. 

Q.  68.  But  there  is  a  worse  inde- 
cency than  this  creeping  in  amongst 
us,  Talking  in  the  Preaching-houses, 
before  and  after  Service.  How  shall 
this  be  cured? 

A.  Let  all  the  Preachers  join  as 
one  man,  and  the  very  next  Sunday 
they  preach  in  any  place,  enlarge  on 
the  impropriety  of  talking  before  or 
after  Service,  and  strongly  exhort 
them  To  do  it  no  more.  In  three 
months,  if  we  are  in  earnest,  this  vile 
practice  will  be  banished  out  of 
every  Methodist-Congregation.  Let 
none  stop,  till  he  has  carried  his  point. 

Q.  69.  Complaint  has  been  made 
that  Sluts  spoil  our  Houses.  How 
may  we  prevent  this? 

A.  Let  none  that  has  spoiled  One, 
ever  live  in  another.  But  what  a 
shame  is  this?  A  Preacher's  Wife 
should  be  a  pattern  of  Cleanliness, 
in  her  person,  Cloaths  and  Habita- 
tion. Let  nothing  slatternly  be  seen 
about  her;  No  rags;  no  dirt:  no  litter. 
And  she  should  be  a  pattern  of  In- 
dustry: Always  at  work,  either  for 
herself,  her  husband,  or  the  Poor.  I 
am  not  willing  any  should  live  in 
the  Orphan-house  at  Ne-ivcastle,  or 
any  Preaching-house,  who  does  not 
conform  to  this  Rule. 


594  '^^^  Pirst  Discipline      and      The  Large  Minutes. 


Q.  70.  It  has  been  complained  also, 
that  people  crowd  into  Preaching- 
houses,  as  into  CofEee-houses  without 
any  invitation.    Is  this  right? 

A.  It  is  utterly  wrong.  Stop  it  at 
once.  Let  no  person  come  into  the 
Preacher's  House,  unless  he  wants 
to  ask  a  question. 

Q.  71.  May  any  New  Preaching- 
houses  be  built? 

A.  Not  unless,  i.  They  are  pro- 
posed at  the  Conference:  No  nor  2. 
Unless  two-thirds  of  the  expence  be 
subscribed.  And  if  any  Collection  be 
made  for  them,  it  must  be  made  be- 
tween the  Conference  and  the  be- 
ginning of  February. 

Q.  72.  What  can  be  done  to  make 
the  Methodisfs  sensible  of  the  excel- 
lency of  Kingsivood-Sckool? 

A.  Let  every  Assistant  read  the 
following  account  of  it  yearly  in  ev- 
ery Congregation. 

1.  The  Wisdom  and  Love  of  God 
have  now  thrust  out  a  large  number 
of  Labourers  into  his  harvest:  Men 
who  desire  nothing  on  earth  but  to 
promote  the  Glory  of  God,  by  saving 
their  own  souls  and  those  that  hear 
them.  And  those  to  whom  they 
minister  spiritual  things,  are  willing 
to  minister  to  them  of  their  carnal 
things;  so  that  they  have  food  to  eat, 
and  raiment  to  fut  on,  and  are  content 
therewith. 

2.  A  competent  provision  is  like- 
wise made  for  the  Wives  of  married 
Preachers.  These  also  lack  nothing; 
having  a  weekly  allowance  over  and 
above  for  their  little  children:  So 
that  neither  they  nor  their  Husbands 
need  be  careful  about  many  things,  but 
may  ivait  upon  the  Lord  "without  dis- 
traction. 

3.  Yet  one  considerable  difficulty 
lies  on  those  that  have  Boys,  when  they 
grow  too  big  to  be  under  their  Moth- 


The  First  Disciflijie      and      The  Large  Minulcs.  595 


er's  direction.  Having  no  Father  to 
govern  and  instruct  tliem,  they  are 
exposed  to  a  thousand  temptations. 
To  remedy  this,  we  have  a  School  on 
purpose  for  them,  wherein  they  have 
all  the  instruction  they  are  capable 
of,  together  with  all  things  necessary 
for  the  Body,  Cloaths  only  excepted. 
And  it  may  be,  if  God  prosper  this 
labour  of  love,  they  will  have  these 
too  shortly. 

4.  In  whatever  view  we  look  upon 
this,  it  is  one  of  the  noblest  Charities 
that  can  be  conceived.  How  rea- 
sonable is  the  Institution?  Is  it  fit 
that  the  Children  of  those  who  leave 
Wife,  and  all  that  is  dear,  to  save 
souls  from  death,  should  want  what 
is  needful  either  for  soul  or  body? 
Ought  not  we  to  supply  what  the 
Parent  cannot,  because  of  his  labours 
in  the  Gospel?  How  excellent  are 
the  effects  of  this  Institution?  The 
Preacher  eased  of  this  weight,  can 
the  more  chearfully  go  on  in  his 
labour.  And  perhaps  many  of  these 
Children  may  hereafter  fill  up  the 
place  of  those  that  shall  rest  from 
their  labours . 

5.  It  is  not  strange  therefore  con- 
sidering the  excellence  of  this  de- 
sign, that  Satan  should  have  taken 
much  pains  to  defeat  it,  particularly 
by  Lies  of  every  kind,  which  were 
plentifully  invented  and  handed 
about  for  several  years.  But  Truth 
now  generally  prevails,  and  its  Adver- 
saries are  put  to  silence.  It  is  well 
known,  that  the  Children  want  noth- 
ing ;  that  they  scarce  know  what  Sick- 
ness means;  that  they  are  well  in- 
structed in  whatever  they  are  capa- 
ble of  learning;  that  they  are  care- 
fully and  tenderly  governed,  and  that 
the  behaviour  of  all  in  the  house, 
elder  and  younger,  is  as  becometh  the 

I  Gospel  of  Christ. 


59^  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


Q.  77.  How  may  we  raise  a  Gen- 
eral Fund  for  carrying  on  the  whole 
Work  of  God  ? 

A.  By  a  yearly  Collection,  and,  if 
need  be,  a  quarterly  one,  to  be  raised 
by  every  Assistant  in  every  principal 
Congregation  in  his  Circuit. 

To  this  End  he  may  then  read  and 
enlarge  upon  the  following  Hints  in 
every  such  Congregation. 


6.  But  the  Expence  of  such  an  un- 
dertaking is  very  large,  so  that  we 
are  ill  able  to  defray  it.  The  best 
means  we  could  think  of  at  our  late 
Conference  to  supply  the  deficiency 
is,  once  a  year  to  desire  the  assist- 
ance of  all  those  in  every  place,  who 
wish  well  to  the  work  of  God;  who 
long  to  see  Sinners  converted  to 
God,  and  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  set 
up  in  all  the  Earth. 

7.  All  olyoH,  who  are  thus  minded, 
have  an  Opportunity  now  of  shewing 
your  Love  to  the  Gospel.  Now  pro- 
mote, as  far  as  in  you  lies,  one  of  the 
noblest  Charities  in  the  World.  Now 
forward,  as  you  are  able,  one  of  the 
most  excellent  Designs  that  ever  was 
set  on  foot  in  this  Kingdom.  Do 
what  you  can  to  comfort  the  Parents, 
who  give  up  their  all  for  you,  and  to 
give  their  Children  cause  to  bless 
you.  You  will  be  no  poorer  for 
what  you  do  on  such  an  Occasion. 
God  is  a  good  Pay-master.  And  you 
know,  in  doing  1?his,  you  lend  unto  the 
Lord :  In  due  time  he  shall  pay  you 
again. 

Q.  73.  But  how  can  we  keep  out  of 
Debt? 

A.  Let  collection  be  made  for  this 
School  the  Sunday  before  or  after 
Midsummer,  in  every  Preaching- 
house,  great  and  small,  throughout 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland. 

Q.  74.  How  may  we  raise  a  Gen- 
eral Fund  for  carrying  on  the  whole 
Work  of  God? 

A.  By  a  Yearly  S.ubscription  to  be 
proposed  by  every  Assistant  when 
he  visits  the  Classes  at  Christmas, 
and  received  at  the  Visitation  follow- 
ing. 

To  this  End  he  may  then  read  and 
enlarge  upon  the  following  Hints  in 
every  Society. 

"  I.  Within  these  thirty  Years  sev- 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Mitiutes.  597 


"How  shall  we  send  Labourers 
into  those  Parts,  where  they  are  most 
of  all  wanted?  Many  are  willing  to 
hear,  but  not  to  bear  the  Expence. 
Nor  can  it  as  yet  be  expected  of 
them:  Stay  till  the  Word  of  God  has 
touched  their  Hearts,  and  then  they 
^v^ll  gladly  provide  for  them  that 
preach  it.  Does  it  not  lie  upon  us  in 
the  mean  Time  to  supply  their  Lack 
of  Service?  To  raise  a  General 
Fund  out  of  which  from  Time  to 
Time  that  Expence  may  be  defrayed  ? 
By  this  Means  those  who  willingly 
offer  themselves,  may  travel  through 
every  Part,  whether  there  are  Soci- 
eties or  not,  and  stay  wherever  there 
is  a  Call  without  being  burdensome 
to  any.  Thus  may  the  Gospel,  in  the 
Life  and  Power  thereof,  be  spread 
from  Sea  to  Sea.  Which  of  you  will 
not  rejoice  to  throw  in  your  Mite  to 
promote  this  glorious  work? 


"Besides  this,  in  carrying  on  so 
large  a  Work  through  the  Continent 
there  are  Calls  for  Money  in  various 
Ways,  and  we  mus  frequently  be  at 
considerable  Expence,  or  the  Work 
must  be  at  a  full  Stop.    Many  too  are 


eral  of  our  Brethren  in  various  Parts, 
having  no  Room  which  would  con- 
tain the  Congregation,  by  the  Ad- 
vice of  the  Preachers  have  built 
Houses  for  Preaching,  capable  of  con- 
taining the  usual  Number  of  Hear- 
ers :  But  this  has  necessarily  involved 
them  in  large  debts.  This  the  So- 
cieties to  whom  those  Houses  be- 
long, are  by  no  means  able  to  pay  : 
But  the  whole  Body  of  Methodists 
joining  together  can  do  it  without 
Inconvenience.  Only  let  them  chear- 
fully  exert  on  so  pressing  an  Occa- 
sion the  Ability  which  God  hath 
given  them. 

2.  But  how  shall  we  send  Labour- 
ers into  those  Parts,  where  they  are 
most  of  all  wanted?  Suppose  the 
North- West  of  Ireland,  and  the  North 
of  Scotland?  Many  are  willing  to 
hear;  but  not  to  bear  the  Expence. 
Nor  can  it  as  yet  be  expected  of 
them:  stay  till  the  word  of  God 
has  touched  their  hearts,  and  then 
they  will  gladly  provide  for  them 
that  preach  it.  Does  it  not  lie  upon 
us,  in  the  mean  time,  to  supply  their 
lack  of  service?  To  raise  a  General 
Fund  out  of  which  from  time  to  time 
that  Expence  may  be  defrayed  ?  By 
this  means,  those  who  willingly  offer 
themselves  may  travel  through  every 
part,  whether  there  are  Societies  or 
not,  and  stay  wherever  there  is  a 
Call,  without  being  burdensome  to 
any.  Thus  may  the  Gospel,  in  the 
Life  and  Power  thereof,  be  spread 
from  Sea  to  Sea.  Which  of  you  will 
not  rejoice  to  throw  in  your  Mite,  to 
promote  this  glorious  work  ? 

Besides  these,  in  carrying  on  so 
large  a  Work  through  the  three  King- 
doms, there  are  calls  for  money  in 
various  ways,  and  we  must  frequently 
be  at  considerable  expence,  or  the 
work  must  be  at  a  full  stop.  Many 


598  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


the  occasional  Distresses  of  our 
Preachers  or  their  Families  which  re- 
quire an  immediate  Supply.  Other- 
wise their  Hands  would  hang  down,  if 
they  were  not  constrained  to  depart 
from  the  Work. 

"The  Money  contributed,  will  be 
brought  to  the  ensuing  Conference. 


"Men  and  Brethren,  help!  Was 
there  ever  a  Call  like  this  since  you 
first  heard  the  Gospel-Sound.?  Help 
to  relieve  your  Companions  in  the 
Kingdom  of  Jesus  who  are  prest 
above  Measure.  Bear  ye  one  another^s 
Burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the  Law  of 
Christ.  Help  to  send  forth  able,  will- 
ing Labourers  into  your  Lord's  Har- 
vest: So  shall  ye  be  assistant  in  sav- 
ing Souls  from  Death,  and  hiding  a 
Multitude  of  Sins.  Help  to  spread 
the  Gospel  of  your  Salvation  into  the 
remotest  Corners  of  the  Earth,  till  the 
Knorvledge  of  our  Lord  shall  cover  the 
Land  as  the  W aters  cover  the  Sea.  So 
shall  it  appear  to  ourselves  and  all 
Men,  that  we  are  indeed  one  Body 
united  by  one  Spirit;  so  shall  the  bap- 
tized Heathens  be  yet  again  con- 
strained to  say  See  hozv  those  Chris- 
tians love  one  another." 


too  are  the  occasional  Distresses  of 
our  Preachers  or  their  Families,  which 
require  an  immediate  supply.  Oth- 
erwise their  hands  would  hang  down, 
if  they  were  not  constrained  to  de- 
part from  the  work. 

3.  Let  then  every  member  of  our  So- 
ciety once  a  year,  set  his  shoulder  to 
the  work;  contributing  more  or  less 
as  God  hath  prospered  him,  at  the 
Lady-Day  Visitation  of  the  Classes. 
Let  none  be  excluded  from  giving 
something,  be  it  a  penny,  a  half- 
penny, a  farthing.  Remember  the 
Widow's  two  mites!  And  let  those 
who  are  able  to  give  shillings,  crowns, 
and  pounds,  do  it  willingly.  The 
money  contributed  will  be  brought 
to  Leeds,  Bristol,  or  London,  at  the  en- 
suing Conference. 

4.  Men  and  Brethren,  help!  Was 
there  ever  a  Call  like  this,  since  you 
first  heard  the  Gospel-Sound?  Help 
to  relieve  your  Companions  in  the 
Kingdom  of  Jesus,  who  are  prest 
above  measure.  "Bear  ye  one  an- 
other's burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the 
LaviT  of  Christ."  Help  to  send  forth 
able,  willing  Labourers  into  your 
Lord's  Harvest:  So  shall  ye  be  as- 
sistant in  saving  Souls  from  death, 
and  hiding  a  multitude  of  Sins,  Help 
to  spread  the  Gospel  of  your  Salva- 
tion into  the  remotest  corners  of 
the  Kingdom,  till  "the  Knowledge 
of  our  Lord  shall  cover  the  Land,  as 
the  Waters  cover  the  Sea."  So  shall 
it  appear  to  ourselves,  and  all  men, 
that  we  are  indeed  one  Body,  united 
by  one  Spirit;  so  shall  the  baptized 
Heathens  be  yet  again  constrained  to 
say,  "See  how  these  Christians  love 
one  another." 

In  this,  may  not  even  the  Roman- 
ists provoke  us  to  jealousy.'  They 
have  a  General  Fund  at  Home,  and 
another  at  Paris,  which  bears  all 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  599 


Q.  78.  What  can  bend  one  towards 
erecting  New  Chapels,  and  discharg- 
ing the  Debts  on  those  already  built? 

A.  Let  every  Assistant  raise  a  year- 
ly Subscription  through  his  Circuit: 
And  let  every  Member  who  is  not 
supported  by  Charity,  give  something. 
Let  them  subscribe  the  first  Quarter, 
and  pay  the  Second.  And  let  the 
Money  be  applied  where  it  is  most 
wanted,  by  a  Committee  of  Lay- 
Members  annually  appointed  by  the 
Assistant,  one  of  whom  shall  be  chosen 
out  of  each  Society  concerned. 

Q.  79.  Is  it  not  right  that  the  As- 
sistant, and  not  the  Stewards  or  Lead- 
ers, should  receive  the  quarterly  Col- 
lections in  the  Classes? 

A.  Certainly  it  is.  This  has  been 
the  general  Practice  among  the  Meth- 
odists in  Europe.  And  therefore  let 
every  Assistant  look  to  it,  and  ask 


the  Expences  of  their  Missionaries 
throughout  all  the  world. 

Q.  75.  What  is  the  direct  Antidote 
to  Methodism  (the  Doctrine  of  Heart- 
Holiness  :) 

A.  Calvinism:  All  the  Devices  of 
Satan  for  these  forty  years,  have 
done  far  lets  toward  stopping  this 
Work  of  God,  than  that  single  Doc- 
trine. It  strikes  at  the  root  of  Sal- 
vation from  Sin,  previous  to  glory, 
putting  the  matter  on  quite  another 
issue. 

Q.  76.  But  wherein  lie  the  Charms 
of  this  Doctrine?  What  makes  men 
swallow  it  so  greedily  ? 

A.  I.  It  seems  to  magnify  Christ: 
although  in  reality  it  supposes  him 
to  have  died  in  vain.  For  the  ab- 
solutely elect  must  have  been  saved 
without  him:  And  the  non-elect 
cannot  be  saved  by  him. 

2.  It  is  highly  pleasing  to  flesh  and 
blood,  Final  Perseverance  in  par- 
ticular. 


6oo  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


every  Person,  who  can  afford  it,  for 
his  quarterly  Subscription,  when  he 
changes  the  Tickets ;  and  in  d ue  Time 
let  him  deliver  the  whole  into  the 
Hands  of  the  Stewards,  to  carry  on 
the  Work  of  God  in  the  Circuit. 

Q.  80.  What  can  be  done  to  guard 
against  Antinomianism  ? 

A.  I.  Let  all  our  Preachers  care- 
fully read  over  Mr.  Wesley's  and  Mr. 
Fletcher's  Tracts. 

2.  Let  them  frequently  and  explic- 
itly preach  the  Truth,  though  not  in 
a  controversial  way.  But  let  them 
take  care  to  do  it  in  Love  and  Gentle- 
ness: Not  in  Bitterness,  not  returning 
Railing  for  Railing. 


3.  Answer  all  the  Objections  of  our 
People,  as  Occasion  offers.  But  take 
care  to  do  this  with  all  possible  Sweet- 
ness both  of  Look  and  of  Accent. 


Q.  81.  Wherein  lies  our  Danger  of 
it.? 

A.  I.  With  regard  to  Man's  Faith- 
fnlness,  Our  Lord  himself  taught  us 
to  use  the  Expression.    Therefore  we 


Q.  77.  What  can  be  done,  to  guard 
against  it? 

A.  I.  Let  all  our  Preachers  care- 
fully read  over  Our's  and  Mr.  Fletch- 
er's Tracts. 

2.  Let  them  frequently  and  ex- 
plicitly preach  the  truth,  though  not 
in  a  controversial  way.  But  let  them 
take  care  to  do  it  in  Love  and  Gen- 
tleness: Not  in  bitterness,  not  re- 
turning railing  for  railing.    Let  Mr. 

R          and  R          H  ,  and  their 

Associates,  have  all  this  to  them- 
selves. 

3.  Do  not  imitate  them  in  scream- 
ing, allegorizing,  boasting:  Rather 
mildly  expose  these  things  when 
time  serves. 

4.  Imitate  them  in  this.  They 
readily  seize  upon  any  one  that  is 
newly  convinced  or  converted.  Be 
diligent  to  prevent  them,  and  to 
guard  those  tender  minds  against  the 
Predestinarian  Poison. 

5.  Answer  to  all  their  Objections, 
as  occasion  offers,  both  in  public  and 
private.  But  take  care  to  do  this, 
with  all  possible  Sweetness  both  of 
Look  and  of  Accent. 

6.  Very  frequently,  both  in  public 
and  private,  advise  our  people.  Not 
to  hear  them. 

7.  Make  it  matter  of  constant  and 
earnest  Prayer,  That  God  would  stop 
the  Plague. 

Q.  78.  We  said  in  1744,  "  We  have 
leaned  too  much  toward  Calvinism." 
Wherein? 

A.  I.  With  regard  to  man's  faith- 
fulness. Our  Lord  himself  taught  us 
to  use  the  expression.   Therefore  we 


The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes.  6oi 


ought  never  to  be  ashamed  of  it.  We 
ought  steadily  to  assert  upon  his  Au- 
thority, that  if  a  Man  is  not  Jaithjul 
ill  the  unrighteous  Mammon,  God  ivill 
not  give  him  the  true  Riches. 

2.  With  regard  to  -vorking  for  Life, 
which  our  Lord  expressly  commands 
us  to  do.  Labour  (ergazesthe)  literal- 
ly vjork  for  the  Meat  that  endureth  to 
everlasting  Life.  And  in  Fact  everj^ 
Believer  till  he  comes  to  Glory,  works 
for,  as  well  as  from  Life. 

3.  We  have  received  it  as  a  Maxim, 
that  "A  Man  is  to  do  nothing  in  order 
to  Justification : "  Nothing  can  be 
more  false.  Whoever  desires  to 
find  Favour  with  God,  should  cease 
from  Evil  and  learn  to  do  -well.  So 
God  himself  teaches  by  the  Prophet 
Isaiah.  Whoever  repents,  should  do 
Works  meet  for  Repentance.  And  if 
this  is  not  in  order  to  find  Favour, 
what  does  he  do  them  for 

Once  more  review  the  whole  Af- 
fair: 

1.  Who  of  us  is  nozv  accepted  of 
God? 

He  that  now  believes  in  Christ  with 
a  loving,  obedient  Heart. 

2.  But  who  among  those  that  never 
heard  of  Christ.^ 

He  that  according  to  the  Light  he 
has,  fearefh  God  and  xvorketh  Right- 
eousness. 

3.  Is  this  the  same  with  He  that  is 
sincere^ 

Nearly,  if  not  quite. 

4.  Is  not  this  Salvation  by  Works? 
Not  by  the  Merit  of  Works,  but  by 

Works  as  a  Condition. 


ought  never  to  be  ashamed  of  it. 
We  ought  steadily  to  assert  upon  his 
Authority,  that  if  a  man  is  not  faith- 
ful in  the  unrighteous  fnammon,  God 
-vill  not  give  him  the  true  riches. 

2.  With  regard  to  xiorking  for  life, 
which  our  Lord  expressly  commands 
us  to  do.  Labour  (epya^ea^e)  literally, 
■tvork  for  the  meat  that  endureth  to  ever- 
lasting life.  And  in  fact,  every  Be- 
liever, till  he  comes  to  glory,  works 

for,  as  well  as  from  Life. 

3.  We  have  received  it  as  a  maxim, 
That  "  a  man  is  to  do  nothing,  in  or- 
der to  Justification^''  Nothing  can  be 
more  false.  VVhoever  desires  to  find 
favour  with  God  should  cease  from 
evil  and  learn  to  do  zvell.  So  God 
himself  teaches  by  the  Prophet 
Isaiah.  Whoever  repents  should  de 
■works  meet  for  repentance.  And  if 
this  is  not  in  order  to  find  favour, 
what  does  he  do  them  for.' 

Once  more  review  the  whole  Af- 
fair: 

1.  Who  of  us  is  non'  accepted  of 
God? 

He  that  now  believes  in  Christ, 
with  a  loving,  obedient  heart. 

2.  But  who  among  those  that  never 
heard  of  Christ? 

He  that  according  to  the  light  he 
h.&s,feareik  God  and  worketh  righteous- 

3.  Is  this  the  same  with  He  that  is 
sincere  ? 

Nearly,  if  not  quite. 

4.  Is  not  this  Salvation  by  xvorks? 
Not  by  the  7nerit  of  Works,  but  by 

works  as  a  Condition. 

5.  What  have  we  then  been  dis- 
puting about  for  these  thirty  years? 

I  am  niraid,  about 'ii'ords;  (Namely, 
in  some  of  the  foregoing  instances.) 

6.  As  to  Merit  itself,  of  which  we 
have  been  so  dreadfully  afraid:  We 
are  rewarded  according  to  our  -'.'orks, 


6o2  The  First  Discipline     and     The  Large  Minutes. 


5.  The  grand  Objection  to  one  of 

the  preceding  Propositions,  is  drawn 
from  Matter  of  Fact.  God  does  in 
Fact  justify  those  who  by  their  own 
Confession  neither  feared  God,  nor 
■wrought  Righteousness.  Is  this  an  Ex- 
ception to  the  General  Rule? 

It  is  a  Doubt  whether  God  makes 
any  Exception  at  all.  But  how  are 
we  sure  that  the  Person  in  question 
never  did  fear  God  and  work  Right- 
eousness? His  own  Thinking  so,  is 
not  Proof.  For  we  know  how  all 
that  are  convinced  of  Sin,  undervalue 
themselves  in  every  Respect. 

6.  Does  not  Talking  without  proper 
Caution  of  a  justified  or  sanctified 
State,  tend  to  mislead  Men?  Almost 
naturally  leading  them  to  trust  in 
what  was  done  in  one  Moment? 
Whereas  we  are  every  Moment //eas- 
ing  or  displeasing  God,  according  to 
our  Works:  According  to  the  whole 
of  our  present  inward  Tempers  and 
outward  Behaviour. 


yea,  because  of  our  works.  How  does 
this  differ  from  for  the  sake  of  our 
■works?  And  how  differs  this  from 
Secundutn  nierita  operum.  Which  is 
no  more  than,  as  our  -works  deserve? 
Can  you  split  this  hair?  I  doubt,  I 
cannot. 

7.  The  grand  objection  to  one  of 
the  preceding  Propositions,  is  drawn 
from  matter  of  fact.  God  does  in 
fact  justify  those,  who  by  their  own 
confession  neither  feared  God,  nor 
zvrought  righteousness.  Is  this  an  Ex- 
ception to  the  general  Rule? 

It  is  a  doubt,  whether  God  makes 
any  exception  at  all.  But  how  are 
we  sure  that  the  person  in  question 
never  did  fear  God  and  work  right- 
eousness? His  own  thinking  so  is 
not  proof.  For  we  know,  how  all 
that  are  convinced  of  sin,  under- 
value themselves  in  every  respect. 

8.  Does  not  talking,  without  proper 
caution,  of  a  justified  or  sanctified  state, 
tend  to  mislead  men?  Almost  nat- 
urally leading  them  to  trust  in  what 
was  done  in  one  moment?  Whereas 
we  are  every  moment //<?a5»«^  or  dis- 
pleasing God,  according  to  our  ivorks? 
According  to  the  whole  of  our  pres- 
ent inward  tempers  and  outward  be- 
haviour. 


INDEX. 


(Figwe*  refer 
Aboltionism,  modern,  strong  decla- 
ration against,  413. 
Address,  Episcopal,  an  extended  and 
formal  (signed  by  all  the  bishops), 
recorded  for  the  first  time,  417;  full 
history  of  these  communications, 
417-425. 
Akers,  Peter,  447. 

Allen,  Richard,  the  first  colored  dea- 
con ordained — led  the  first  secession 
of  colored  people  from  the  Church 
in  1816,  and  became  the  first  bishop 
of  the  African  M.  E.  Church,  291. 
Alienation  between  Rankin  and  As- 

bury,  77-Si. 
America,  concerning  the  establish- 
ment of  Methodism  in,  25. 
American  Conferences  of  the  Colo- 
nial Period,  1 773-1 784: 
First    Conference    (1773),  S8-7o; 
Thomas  Rankin  presides,  58,  59; 
the  title  of  the  Minutes  then  and 
afterwards,  58;  date  of  meeting, 

59,  note;  character  and  functions 
of  the  body,  59,  60;  of  whom 
composed,  60;  the  appointments, 

60,  61;  serial  digest  of  the  busi- 
ness of,  61 ;  the  various  transac- 
tions considered,  61-70;  of  doc- 
trine and  discipline,  61 ;  debates 
and  differences, 63-65  ;of  rules  and 
regulations,  66;  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper,  66-68;  admittance 
to  love  feasts  and  society  meet- 
ings, 68;  regulating  the  book 
business,  68,  69;  amenability  of 
preachers,  69;  of  minute  or  ex- 
ecutive business,  69;  the  appoint- 
ments, and  members  in  society, 
70;  Methodist  center  of  gravity 
now  in  the  South,  70;  the  con- 


o  pages.) 

stitutional  work  recognized,  70, 
note. 

Second  Annual  Conference  (1774), 
71 ;  Thomas  Rankin  in  the  chair, 
71;  disciplinary  questions  an- 
swered, 72;  members  in  society, 
72;  appointments,  72;  severity  of 
discipline,  72,  73;  temporal  econ- 
omy, 73, 75 ;  financial  jurisdiction 
changed,  74;  accounts  of  the  ses- 
sion by  Rankin,  Asbury,  Bangs, 
and  Stevens,  75,  76;  comments 
on  Rankin's  administration,  76, 
77;  alienation  between  Rankin 
and  Asbury,  75-77 ;  the  nature  of 
their  differences  as  given  by  As- 
bury, 77-79;  both  appeal  to  Wes- 
ley, who  advises  reconciliation, 
79-81 ;  the  matter  ended,  81. 
Third  Annual  Conference  (1775), 
82;  Thomas  Rankin,  president, 
82;  disciplinary  questions,  82; 
appointments,  directions,  and 
agreements,  82;  a  general  fast 
appointed,  82 ;  three  new  English 
preachers  and  their  failings,  S3; 
Rankin  and  Asbury  pronounce 
the  session  harmonious,  83. 
Fourth  Annual  Conference  (1776), 
Thomas  Rankin  presiding,  84; 
preachers  admitted,  assistants 
named,  appointments  made,  and 
statistics  reported,  84;  a  day  of 
general  fasting  designated,  84; 
Watters  on  the  temper  of  the 
Conference,  84;  Asbury's  ab- 
sence and  illness,  85. 
Fifth  Annual  Conference  (1777), 
85;  Thomas  Rankin  presiding, 
85;  minute  questions  asked  and 
answered,  85-87;  preachers  ad- 
(603) 


Index. 


mitted  and  assistants  named,  86; 
Asburj  and  Rankin  notdefinitely 
assigned  to  work,  86;  statistics, 
86;  fast-day  appointed  86;  ques- 
tions on  the  fidelity  of  preachers 
and  abuse  of  funeral  sermons,  86, 
87;  the  burning  question  of  the 
sacraments,  87 ;  Asbury 's  account 
of  his  preliminary  meeting  and 
details  of  scenes  at  the  Confer- 
ence, 87,  88;  Rankin's  return  to 
England,  and  government  of  the 
American  work  by  a  committee, 
88,  89;  action  on  the  question  of 
the  ordinances  laid  over,  89; 
names  of  the  Committee  of  Con- 
trol, Asbury's  omitted,  Watters 
chairman,  89;  the  last  of  Rankin's 
administration,  90;  summing  up 
of  the  Asbury-Rankin  case,  90- 
93- 

Sixth  Annual  Conference  (1778), 
assembling  of  the,  94;  William 
Watters,  president,  94;  action  on 
administration  of  the  sacraments 
again  deferred,  94;  statistics  and 
appointments,  new  minute  ques- 
tions, 94,  95;  a  fast-day  ordered, 
95;  Asbury  not  present,  but  his 
position  and  influence  undimin- 
ished, 95;  reasons  for  his  tempo- 
rary retirement, 96;  his  improved 
treatment  by  the  preachers,  96; 
time  and  place  of  next  meeting, 
96. 

Seventh  "irregular"  Annual  Con- 
ference (1779),  for  the  Northern 
stations,  97;  Francis  Asbury  pre- 
siding; 97;  his  account  of  the 
meeting,  97;  indications  of  trou- 
ble with  the  preachers  of  the 
Southern  and  regular  Confer- 
ence, 97;  a  pledge  of  fidelity  to 
the  work  signed  by  Asbury  and 
others,  97;  authority  of  Assistant 
defined  and  increased,  97;  justi- 
fying the  extraordinary  proceed- 


ings, as  preparatory  to  the  regu- 
lar Conference,  98;  to  guard 
against  a  separation  from  the 
Church,  98;  declaration  that  As- 
bury ought  to  act  as  General  As- 
sistant, and  the  extent  of  his 
power  fixed,  98;  the  legal  or 
governmental  situation  de- 
scribed, 98-100;  points  in  exten- 
uation of  the  hasty  action  of  the 
body,  loo,  loi ;  opinions  of  Neely, 
McTyeire,  Lee,  and  Stevens,  on 
the  merits  of  the  controversy, 
102-104. 

Seventh  "regular"  Annual  Con- 
ference (1779),  Philip  Gatch  pre- 
siding, 104;  Watters's  name  at 
the  bottom  of  the  list,  and  As- 
bury's not  mentioned  in  the  min- 
utes, 105;  statistics  faintly  in- 
dicating union  between  the  two 
Conferences,  105;  legality  of  the 
proceedings,  106;  probation  of 
preachers  extended,  106;  solu- 
tion of  the  sacramental  contro- 
versy not  recorded  in  minutes, 
106;  questions  and  answers  on 
the  ordinances,  from  Gatch's 
journal,  106,  107;  the  govern- 
mental situation  reviewed,  107- 
109;  the  recognition  of  Asbury's 
powers,  by  the  Kent  Conference, 
ignored,  108;  the  committee  or- 
dained themselves  first,  then  or- 
dained and  set  apart  others  to  ad- 
minister the  sacraments,  108: 
the  principles  of  old  Methodism 
departed  from,  but  eventually 
this  action  contributed  to  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Church,  109. 

Eighth  "irregular"  Conference 
(1780),  Francis  Asbury  presiding, 
109;  the  conservatives  gaining 
ground,  109;  the  "original  plan" 
of  1773  reaffirmed  in  substance, 
no;  Asbury's  statesmanship  as- 
serting itself,  no,  in;  his  policy 


Index. 


605 


outlined  in  a  series  of  twenty 
questions  and  answers,  in,  112; 
reference  to  the  minutes,  112, 
113;  the  doctrinal  standards  first 
recognized,  ii3;enumerated,  113; 
concerning  trustees  and  the  form 
of  deeds,  113,  114;  Introduction 
of  anti-slavery  legislation,  114, 
115;  motives  of  Asburj  in  form- 
ing and  continuing  the  Confer- 
ence, 115;  the  gospel  among  the 
slaves,  115;  suspension  of  the 
ordinances,  and  all  grievances 
canceled,  116. 

Eighth  "regular"  Conference 
(1780),  1 16-120;  no  separate  min- 
utes of  this  session,  116,  117; 
views  of  Stevens  on  the  legiti- 
macy of  the  body,  117;  no  mate- 
rial part  of  the  proceedings  lost, 
117;  the  sacramental  controversy 
and  the  question  of  union,  117, 
118;  accounts  of  Asbury,  Wat- 
ters,  and  Garrettson,  the  com- 
missioners of  union,  Ii8;  agree- 
ment reached  and  separation 
averted,  119;  the  ordinances  sus- 
pended for  one  year,  Wesley 
consenting,  119,  120;  the  over- 
whelming personal  influence  of 
Asbury,  who  is  again  called  to 
superintend  the  whole  work,  120. 

Ninth  Annual  Conference  (1781), 
1 21-127;  marks  the  beginning  of 
a  new  era  of  peace  and  prosperi- 
ty, 121 ;  a  preparatory  and  regular 
session,  121 ;  impressions  of  As- 
bury and  Watters,  121;  large  in- 
crease of  members,  121 ;  unique 
heading  of  the  official  minutes, 
disclosing  the  germ  of  the  mod- 
ern Annual  Conference,  122-124; 
action  to  cement  the  union  ef- 
fected the  preceding  year,  124; 
O'Kelly  not  present,  125;  Wes- 
ley's counsel  as  to  the  adminis- 
tration of  the   sacraments  re- 


ceived and  followed,  125;  minis- 
terial probation  of  two  years 
recognized  as  the  legal  period, 
126;  reading  prescribed — courses 
of  study  in  embryo,  126;  Tver- 
man's  comment  on  the  Wesley- 
Doddridge  correspondence,  126. 
Tenth  Annual  Conference  (1782), 
127-131;  two  sessions,  and  their 
legislative  relations,  127;  As- 
bury's  notes  on  the  Virginia  ses- 
sion, 127,  128;  approval  of  the 
old  plan  regarding  the  ordinances, 

127,  1 28;  O'Kelly  takes  an  ap- 
pointment, 128;  disaffection  of 
local  preachers  comes  to  an  end, 

128,  129;  Asbury  on  the  Balti- 
more session,  129;  action  on  the 
sacraments  concurred  in,  129; 
steady  growth  in  members,  129; 
questions  concerning  rules  and 
regulations,  129;  certificate  of 
membership  for  the  laity,  130; 
expurgated  questions  with  refer- 
ence to  ordinations  and  sacra- 
ments, 130;  Asbury  unanimously 
chosen  to  act  as  General  Assist- 
ant, according  to  Wesley's  origi- 
nal appointment,  130,  131;  pro- 
vision for  holding  two  Confer- 
ences in  each  year,  131. 

Eleventh  Annual  Conference 
(1783),  Francis  Asbury  presiding 
in  both  sessions,  131-133;  his 
references  to  the  work,  131,  132; 
statistics  show  an  increase,  132; 
advanced  ground  maintained  on 
slavery  and  temperance,  132; 
conditions  for  receiving  Euro- 
pean Methodists,  132 ;  directions 
to  the  general  stewards,  132;  the 
second  session,  133;  limitation  of 
attendance,  and  engagement  of 
local  preachers,  133;  Asbury 
writes  to  Shadford  concerning 
his  work  and  his  love  for  Ameri- 
ca, 133. 


6o6 


Index. 


Twelfth  Annual  Conference  (1784), 
the  last  before  the  Episcopal  or- 
ganization—Francis Asbury  pre- 
siding in  the  two  sessions,  133-138; 
his  brief  notes  on  the  proceed- 
ings, 134;  his  election  as  General 
Assistant  confirmed  by  Wesley 
in  a  letter  to  the  Conference,  134; 
other  directions  in  this  letter — 
doctrinal  and  disciplinary  basis 
of  Methodism — exclusion  of  Eu- 
ropean preachers — equal  authori- 
ty of  American  and  English  min- 
utes— Wesley's  continued  su- 
premacy in  American  Metho- 
dism, 135,  136;  effects  of  Wesley's 
letter  on  legislation  at  the  ensu- 
ing Conference,  136;  Societies 
on  the  eve  of  transformation 
into  a  Church,  136;  anti-slavery 
regulations  for  members,  local 
preachers,  and  itinerants,  136; 
Jesse  Lee's  opinion  of  these  rules 
on  slavery,  137;  question  on  death 
of  preachers  first  asked,  137;  al- 
lowance to  General  Assistant 
and  wives  of  preachers,  137;  di- 
rections against  superfluity  of 
dress,  137;  provisions  for  the  ar- 
rest and  trial  of  preachers,  137; 
erection  of  new  chapels  and  pay- 
ment of  debts  on  others  provided 
for,  137,  138;  three  Conferences 
appointed  for  the  coming  year, 
138;  great  predominance  of  the 
Church  in  the  South,  i38;Thomas 
Ware's  picture  of  this  memora- 
ble Conference  and  of  Asbury, 
138. 

American  Methodism,  the  true  epoch 
of,  17  (note);  a  plan  for  the  per- 
petuity of,  28;  the  beginnings  of, 
47-57;  the  original  basis  of,  65;  the 
principal  founder  of  (Strawbridge), 
70;  the  doctrinal  standards  of,  139- 
148. 

American  Revolution,  approach  of 


the,  calls  forth  a  pertinent  letter 
from  Wesley,  80. 
Andrew,  James  O.,  elected  bishop, 
411 ;  in  the  General  Conference  of 
1840,  415,  416;  never  presided  in 
the  New  England  Conferences,  425 
(note);  his  arraignment  and  sus- 
pension from  the  episcopal  office 

(1844)  ,  442-446;  one  of  the  presi- 
dents of  the  Louisville  Convention 

(1845)  ,  436- 

Annual  Conferences,  the  English, 
19-44;  the  American  (to  1784),  71- 
103;  germ  and  character  of  the 
modern  American,  122-124;  the 
bishops  required  to  allow  them  to 
sit  a  week  at  least,  293;  empowered 
to  appoint  the  places  of  their  ses- 
sicyis,  293. 

Appointing  power  of  the  bishops, 
modification  of  the,  293. 

Appointments,  exchange  of,  72,  73, 
82. 

Articles  of  Religion,  first  of  the 
standards  of  doctrine,  113;  the 
standard  of  unity,  140;  restrictive 
rule  as  to  changing,  140,  141;  the 
twenty-third  article  altered  to  its 
present  form,  292;  adopted  instead 
of  the  Church  of  England  articles, 
146. 

Asbury,  Francis,  second  General  As- 
sistant for  America,  51 ;  his  state- 
ment that  Strawbridge  formed  the 
first  Methodist  society,  52 ;  comes  to 
America  with  a  fellow-itinerant — 
his  preparatory  self-examination 
53;  sojourn  in  Philadelphia — wel- 
comed lovingly  by  Pilmoor  and 
the  people,  54;  goes  to  New  York — 
expects  trouble,  but  is  determined 
to  overcome  it,  54,  55;  only  a 
"helper"  to  the  "assistant"  in 
charge  of  the  American  circuit,  55; 
Wesley,  displeased  with  the  admin- 
istrative situation,  appoints  him  to 
act  as  assistant,  55;  Stevens's  trib- 


hid  ex. 


607 


ute  to  his  invincible  energy,  55; 
his  promotion  effected  without 
friction  55;  conducts  the  first  Quar- 
terly Conference,  56;  disorders  con- 
tinuing in  spite  of  his  vigilance, 
he  asks  to  be  relieved,  and  is  suc- 
ceeded by  Rankin,  his  senior  in  the 
itinerancy,  57;  at  the  first  Ameri- 
can Conference — his  critical  com- 
ments and  the  probable  reasons 
for  them,  63-65;  sent  to  Baltimore, 
the  pivotal  city,  70;  at  the  next 
Conference  he  is  appointed  to  New 
York  for  the  first  quarter,  then  to 
Philadelphia,  72  ;  his  account  of  the 
second  Conference,  75;  his  differ- 
ences with  Rankin — both  appeal 
to  Wesley,  76-79;  he  returns  to  Bal- 
timore before  the  next  Conference 
meets,  79;  his  superiority  to  Ran- 
kin conceded,  but  the  error  of  his 
appeal  to  Wesley  shown,  79;  his 
and  Rankin's  alienation  ended 
through  the  good  offices  of  Wes- 
ley, 80,  81 ;  his  wish  to  go  to  An- 
tigua happily  defeated,  81 ;  sent 
from  the  third  Conference  to  Nor- 
folk, and  from  the  fourth  to  Balti- 
more, although  not  present  at  the 
latter,  83,  85;  takes  no  appointment 
at  the  Conference,  86;  holds  a 
"caucus"  and  outlines  business 
and  fixes  appointments,  87,  88;  sug- 
gests government  by  a  committee, 
in  view  of  Rankin's  intended  de- 
parture, 88;  conjectures  as  to  why 
he  was  not  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  committee,  89-91;  inclines  to 
"  abide  with  the  flock  "  in  America, 
91;  his  record  as  the  "Apostle  of 
American  Methodism,"  93;  his 
name  disappears  from  the  records 
of  the  sixth  Conference,  95 ;  his  final 
decision  to  stay  in  America,  95; 
his  retirement  for  a  season,  and 
great  change  of  feeling  toward 
him,  96;  presides  at  the  seventh 


"  preparatory  "  Conference — his  ac- 
count of  the  session,  97;  designated 
as  General  Assistant,  98,  99;  differ- 
ent views  as  to  the  regularity  of 
his  action,  100-104;  his  name  not 
mentioned  in  the  minutes  of  the 
seventh  "regular"  Conference, 
105;  his  powers  as  General  Assist- 
ant ignored,  108;  he  presides  in  the 
eighth  "irregular"  Conference, 
109;  his  adherents  gain  some 
ground,  109;  source  of  his  strength 
— the  "original  plan,"  110;  his 
statesmanship  asserting  itself,  110- 
116;  his  account  of  the  embassy  to 
the  eighth  regular  Conference,  118; 
he  brings  about  amicable  relations 
between  the  "  two-conference  "  fac- 
tions, 119,  120;  his  powers  as  Gen- 
eral Assistant  at  last  recognized, 
120;  at  the  ninth  Conference,  un- 
der his  leadership,  American  Meth- 
odism presents  an  unbroken  front, 
121 ;  his  account  of  the  regular  ses- 
sion, 121 ;  appoints  two  cooperative 
Conferences,  123;  his  notes  on  the 
Virginia  and  Baltimore  sessions  of 
the  tenth  Conference,  127,  129;  he 
is  again  unanimously  chosen  to 
"preside  over  the  American  Con- 
ferences and  the  whole  work,"  130, 
131 ;  his  presidency  in  both  sessions 
of  the  eleventh  Conference,  131; 
his  short  notes  thereon,  131,  132; 
expression  of  his  love  for  America, 
133;  presides  in  the  two  sessions  of 
the  twelfth  and  last  Conferene  be- 
fore the  Episcopal  organization, 
134;  a  plan  to  abridge  his  powers 
thwarted  bj'  Wesley,  134;  holds  the 
general  superintendency  by  a  dou- 
ble tenure,  135  ;  his  letter  from  Wes- 
ley affects  legislation,  136;  he  is 
pictured  by  Thomas  Ware,  138; 
tells  upon  what  rests  his  authority, 
161;  his  appointment  as  joint  su- 
perintendent with  Coke,  175;  first 


6o8 


Index. 


meeting  with  Coke,  and  their  con- 
sultation as  to  the  future  manage- 
ment of  affairs,  i8i,  182;  he  forms 
a  council  at  Barratt's,  and  suggests 
the  Christmas  Conference  with  the 
design  of  organizing  an  Independ- 
ent Episcopal  Church,  182;  his  de- 
termination not  longer  to  act  un- 
der Wesley's  original  appointment, 
182-185;  his  proposal  the  germ  of 
General  Conference  government, 
185;  ultimately  secures  self-gov- 
ernment to  American  Methodism, 
191 ;  elected  superintendent  by  the 
Christmas  Conference,  and  or- 
dained by  Coke,  196;  presides  with 
Coke  at  the  first  session  of  the  South 
Carolina  Conference,  226 ;  his  letter 
to  Joseph  Benson  about  Wesley's 
assumed  supremacy  and  his  own 
recall  to  England,  229,  230;  ac- 
quiesced in  Wesley's  nomination 
of  Whatcoat  for  the  superintend- 
ency,  233;  acts  for  the  bishops  and 
Conference  in  presenting  an  ad- 
dress to  President  Washington, 
242;  devises  the  plan  of  the  Coun- 
cil, which  is  adopted  by  the  Con- 
ference (1789),  243;  the  purity  of 
his  motives — his  personal  state- 
ment, 247;  accedes  to  the  plan  for  a 
General  Conference,  252;  his  ad- 
ministration assailed  by  O'Kelly  in 
a  resolution  which  the  Conference 
(of  1792)  rejects — his  unfavorable 
opinion  of  O'Kelly,  258-260;  ten- 
ders his  resignation  as  bishop  in 
1800,  but  the  Conference  declines 
to  accept  it — he  is  continued  in  the 
work,  to  serve  at  his  own  pleasure, 
287,  28S;  author  of  the  law  requir- 
ing Conference  journals  to  be  kept 
and  inspected,  290;  he  declines  to 
serve  with  his  colleagues  (1840)  in 
considering  the  slavery  question, 
294;  presides  alone  in  the  Confer- 
of  1808,  297;  his  suggestion  of  go- 


ing to  Europe  (1812)  is  kindly 
opposed,  and  he  reconsiders,  331 ; 
attends  his  last  Conference  (1815), 
331  ;he  refused  the  aid  of  presiding 
elders  in  making  appointments, 
332;  his  valedictory  address  to  the 
Conference  (1816)  and  to  Bishop 
McKendree,  332,  336. 

Atkinson,  Dr.  John,  on  beginnings  of 
the  Wesley  movement  in  America, 
57,  note. 

Atlay,  John,  154,  157. 

Atmore,  Charles,  ordained  for  Scot- 
land, 176. 

Authority,  the  competition  of,  be- 
tween Wesley  and  Coke  and  the 
Conference,  and  between  Wesley 
and  Asbury,  229-233. 

Baltimore  Conference  System  of 
Government:  fresh  evidence  ad- 
duced and  a  fuller  examination 
made  of  the  whole  subject,  523-531. 

Bancroft,  George,  on  the  "  new  Epis- 
copal Church,"  note,  181 ;  on  slave 
emancipation,  223,  224. 

Bangs,  Nathan,  quoted,  etc.,  57,  76, 
333,  338.  351.  416,  447.  448- 

Barber,  John,  ordained  for  Scotland, 
176. 

Bascom,  Henry  B.,  makes  report  af- 
firming the  ordination  rights  of 
local  slaveholding  preachers,  and 
the  Conference  (1840)  concurs, 
427-429;  his  report  as  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Organization  at 
the  Louisville  Convention,  436,  451. 

Bassett,  Richard,  a  framer  of  the 
American  Constitution,  and  Gov- 
ernor of  Delaware,  erects  a  large 
chapel  at  his  own  expense,  181. 

Bennet,  John,  19. 

Benning,  Thomas  C,  436. 

Benson,  Joseph,  57,  229,  230. 

"Binding  minute,"  or  resolution  of 
submission,  rescinded  by  the  Con- 
ference (1787),  236. 


Index. 


Bishop,  the  term,  substituted  for  su- 
perintendent, 197;  the  title  of,  dis- 
tasteful to  Wesley,  201 ;  he  rebukes 
Asbury  for  bearing  the  designa- 
tion, 203;  election  and  consecration 
of,  204;  duties  of,  under  Wesley's 
system  of  discipline,  stated  by  Bish- 
op Soule,  211-213;  the  title  of,  first 
applied  to  superintendents  in  the 
Discipline  of  1787 — ^Jesse  Lee's  rec- 
ord of  the  change,  240. 

Bishops,  the  constitutional  powers  of, 
referred  to  and  settled  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  423-427;  appoint- 
ing power  of,  limited — required  to 
allow  Annual  Conferences  to  sit  a 
week  at  least,  293;  proposition  to 
confer  a  veto  power  upon,  353-363, 
384;  the  decisions  of,  378  (note); 
a  plan  of  annual  visitation  pro- 
vided, 3S6,  387;  first  official  meet- 
ing of  (1826),  389-396;  not  required 
to  travel  over  the  whole  of  their 
charges  during  Conference  recess, 
411. 

Black,  William,  194. 

Boardman,  Richard,  welcomed  at 
Philadelphia,  52;  acted  as  Wesley's 
"assistant"  or  superintendent,  52, 
53;  in  charge  of  the  American  cir- 
cuit, his  policy  is  disapproved  by 
Wesley,  55 ;  superseded  by  Asbury, 
55;  a  member  of  the  first  Confer- 
ence, but  not  given  an  appoint- 
ment, 60;  his  departure  for  En- 
gland, 60;  impeachment  of  his  ad- 
ministration, 63,  64. 

Book  business,  rules  to  regulate  the, 
68,  69. 

Book  Concern,  produce  of  the — how 

appropriated,  450. 
Books,  printing  and  selling  Weslev's, 

69. 

Boring,  Jesse,  436. 
Bowen,  Thomas,  250. 
Boyle,  Joseph,  439. 
Bradford,  Joseph,  159. 

39 


Brock,  Moses,  436,  439. 
Bruce,  Philip,  245,  250. 
Brush,  George  W.,  439. 
Burwash,  Professor  X.,  on  the  stand- 
ards of  doctrine,  140. 

Campbell,  L,ewell,  43S. 

Canada  question,  peaceful  adjudica- 
tion of  the,  351-353. 

Canonicals,  used  by  the  bishops  and 
elders  for  some  years  following 
the  Christmas  Conference — As- 
bury so  attired  immediately  after 
his  ordination,  224,  225. 

Capers,  William,  nominated  by  the 
first  bishops'  meeting  (1826)  as  fra- 
ternal messenger  to  the  British 
Conference,  but  rejected  because  he 
was  an  owner  of  slaves,  390;  elected 
by  the  General  Conference  (1828), 
400;  other  references  to,  438,  439, 
441  (note). 

Cartwright,  Peter,  381. 

Casting  vote,  the,  decision  against 
the  Conference  president's  preroga- 
tive of  giving,  416,  417,  432. 

Catlett,  Thomas  K.,  436,  439. 

Certificate,  given  by  Coke  to  the 
Conference  of  1787,  import  of  the, 
235-237- 

Chartered  Fund,  establishment  of 
the,  267;  disposition  of  the  produce 
of  the,  450. 

Christmas  Conference,  the,  not  em- 
braced in  Wesley's  plan,  180,  181 ; 
the  call  proposed  by  Asbury  and 
agreed  to  by  Coke  and  the  council 
at  Barratt's,  182;  not  a  General 
Conference  in  the  proper  sense, 
but  an  organizing  convention,  1S5; 
gave  autonomy  to  the  American 
Church,  192;  the  chief  plank  in 
Asbury's  platform,  192;  the  ses- 
sion begun,  195;  Asbury's  notice, 
196;  the  proceedings,  196-204;  the 
far-reaching  and  permanent  re- 
sults, 205. 


6io 


Index. 


Church  government,  the  Episcopal 
form  of,  144;  Minute  questions  and 
answers  on  the  subject  of,  168; 
Wesley's  convictions,  168,  169; 
miscarriage  of  Coke's  plan  for  the 
episcopal  form  in  English  Meth- 
odism, 179,  180;  declaration  *.n  the 
first  Discipline,  197;  Garrettson's 
views  on  Wesley's  intentions,  as 
expressed  in  a  letter  to  McCaine, 
201 ;  other  testimony,  202-204. 
Class  leaders,  recognition  of,  210.  | 
Coke,  Thomas,  and  the  Deed  of  Dec- 1 
laration,  36-44;  first  bishop  of  the 
Church  in  America,  36;  presided 
in  the  organizing  Conference  at 
Baltimore,  37;  his  letters  to  Wes- 
ley, 160,  169,  170;  history  of  his  or- 
dination as  bishop,  the  weightiest 
transaction  in  Methodism,  167-175; 
receives  credentials  and  circular  let- 
ter from  Wesley,  174,  175;  sets  sail 
for  America,  175;  his  arrival  at  New 
York,  180;  reveals  Wesley's  plan, 
and  enters  upon  his  mission,  180, 
181 ;  his  first  meeting  with  Asbury, 
their  interchange  of  views,  and 
the  Christmas  Conference  called, 
181,  182;  certain  of  his  appoint 
ments  beyond  the  limits  of  Great 
Britain,  189;  he  was  uneasy  about 
the  autonomy  of  the  American 
Church — went  further  in  its  organi- 
zation than  Wesley  intended,  192; 
his  reference  to  the  petition  to  the 
Virginia  Assembly  in  behalf  of  the 
slaves,  223;  he  and  Asbury  dine 
with  Washington  at  Mount  Ver- 
non and  discuss  negro  emancipa- 
tion— his  account  of  the  interview, 
224;  presides  with  Asbury  over  the 
first  session  of  the  South  Carolina 
Conference,  226;  text  of  his  agree- 
ment to  suspend  his  episcopal  func- 
tions while  absent  from  the  United 
States,  227;  the  powers  of  which  he 
deprived  himself,  as  pointed  out  by 


Thomas  Ware,  227,  228;  his  action 
under  the  "resolution  of  submis- 
sion," 233-235;  his  certificate  of 
surrender  to  the  Conference  (1787), 
235-237;  obtains  a  permanency  for 
General  Conterences,  239,  253,  254; 
his  alarm  foi  the  Church  because 
of  the  O'Kelly  Conference  and  the 
disaffection  incited  by  the  Council, 
253;  his  high  valuation  of  Ameri- 
can itinerants,  265;  action  on  his 
case  by  the  Conference  of  1796 — 
his  offer  of  full  service  to  the 
American  Church  accepted,  270; 
official  record  of  his  episcopate — 
his  frequent  absences  in  Europe, 
271,  272;  his  temporary  return  to 
the  British  Conference  granted, 
286,  287;  his  return  to  Europe 
granted  (1804),  but  he  may  be  re- 
called by  three  Annual  Confer- 
ences, 293;  his  last  visit  to  America, 
295;  his  first  absence  from  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  (1808) — his  mar- 
riage, 316;  explains  by  letter  his 
relations  to  American  Methodism, 
and  his  negotiations  with  Bishop 
White  for  union  with  the  Episco- 
pal Church — the  whole  case  ended 
and  his  name  retained  on  the  Min- 
utes, 320-322. 

Cole,  Le  Roy,  86,  124,  198. 

Collins,  J.  A.,  432. 

Colored  persons,  testimony  of, against 
white  persons  in  church  trials,  Ig- 
natius Few's  resolution  forbidding, 
adopted  (1840)  after  a  strange  par- 
liamentary history, 430-432  ;passage 
of  Bishop  Soule's  expository  reso- 
lutions on  the  subject,  433. 

Comfort,  Silas,  the  decision  against, 
for  maladministration  in  permit- 
ting the  testimony  of  colored  per- 
sons, reversed  by  unusual  meth- 
ods, 433,  434. 

Committee  of  Control,  members  of, 
named  at  the  fifth  Annual  Confer- 


Index. 


6ii 


ence — Watters  and  four  colleagues 
89;  their  functions,  88,  89;  a  new 
committee  named  by  the  seventh 
regular  Annual  Conference,  Philip 
Gatch  and  three  others,  106;  their 
powers,  106. 

Communion,  the  new  term  of,  on  the 
question  of  human  slavery,  216, 
217;  legislation  thereon  comes  to 
naught,  218. 

Conference,  origin  of  the,  15-24;  the 
first  English  (1744),  19;  the  first 
American  (1773),  58-70. 

Conferences  from  1785  to  1792,  pro- 
ceedings of  the,  22 1-242  ;  changes  in 
the  Minutes,  221,  222;  number  of 
sessions,  222. 

Connaway,  Charles,  250. 

Connectionalism,  the  essence  of  the 
Methodist  system,  58. 

Constitution  (1808),  adoption  of  the, 
297-324;  subjected  to  its  first  se- 
vere strain  (1820) — a  grave  defect 
in  its  provisions  revealed — no  tribu- 
nal empowered  to  pass  upon  the 
constitutionality  of  the  acts  of  the 
General  Conference — measure  of 
relief  adopted  clothing  the  bishops 
with  a  veto  power,  353-363;  first 
formal  amendment,  by  the  process 
fixed  by  the  Constitution  itself,  ini- 
tiated, 400-403;  duly  ratified  by  the 
Annual  Conferences,  403;  further 
remarks  on  the  Constitution  of 
1808,  483-491;  (i)  The  alleged  re- 
served powers  of  the  body  of  elders, 
482,  483;  (2)  The  judicial  powers  of 
the  General  Conference,  483-489; 
(3)  Are  the  doctrinal  standards  un- 
changeable? 489-491. 

Constitutional  questions,  measures 
for  the  settlement  of,  353-363. 

Cooley,  Judge  Thomas  M.,  493. 

Cooper,  Ezekiel,  95,  291,  292,  306,  370. 

Costerdine,  Robert,  25. 

Council,  the  plan  of  the,  devised  by 
Asbury  and  adopted  by  the  Con- 


ference (17S9) — text  of  its  provi- 
sions, 243,  244 ;  defects  in  the  scheme 
pointed  out,  244 ;  minutes  of  the 
first  session  as  preserved  by  Lee, 
245,  246:  some  vital  concessions 
and  improvements,  246,  247;  purity 
of  Asbury's  motives  as  author  of 
the  plan — the  body  truly  repre- 
sentative and  connectional,  247; 
official  reply  to  Lee's  strictures, 
248;  O'Kelly's  strange  opposition 
to  Asbury  and  the  Council,  248; 
its  legislation  laid  before  the  Con- 
ferences of  1790 — their  action  not 
uniform,  248-250;  important  points 
of  the  second  and  last  session — 
dissatisfaction  prevails,  and  the 
plan  is  abandoned,  250,  251 ;  su- 
perseded by  the  General  Confer- 
ence, 253. 
Course  of  Study,  significant  changes 
in  the — the  standards  of  doctrine 
included,  143;  the  first  provision  of 
a,  335- 

Cownley,  Joseph,  ordained  for  Scot- 
land, 176. 

Crandall,  Phineas,  441  (note). 

Creighton,  James,  assists  Wesley  in 
ordinations,  172,  173. 

Cromwell,  James  O.,  198,  245,  250. 

Crouch,  Benjamin  T.,  439. 

Crowder,  Thomas,  438,  447. 

Cumming,  David  B.,  436. 

Deacons,  regulations  concerning, 
209. 

Deed  of  Declaration,  date  of  the, 
38,  43;  distinguished  from  the 
Model  Deed,  142  (note);  Moore's 
account  of  the  153,  154;  its  title, 
object,  conditions,  and  regulations, 
155-157;  the  preachers  named  un- 
der its  terms,  157;  violent  opposi- 
tion of  those  rejected,  158;  their 
fears  allayed  by  Wesley's  post- 
mortem letter  159;  his  final  defense 
of  his  action  under  the  Deed,  160; 


6l2 


Index. 


its    provision    for    extending  the 
powers  of  the  Conference,  189. 
Deed  of  Settlement,  the,  doctrinal 

standards  nominated  in,  142,  143. 
Delegated  General  Conference,  his- 
tory of  the  legislation  of  1808  con- 
cerning a,  297-313. 
Delegated  General  Conferences  of 
the  Undivided  Church: 
First  Conference,  1812 — the  mem- 
bership, alternate  delegates  be- 
ing recognized,  327;  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree  presents  the  first  for- 
mal, episcopal  address — a  prece- 
dent ever  since  followed,  328; 
other  addresses  by  the  two  bish- 
ops— their  privileges  on  the  Con- 
ference floor,  329;  standing  com- 
mittees raised — report  on  bound- 
aries and  episcopacy,  330;  As- 
bury's  suggestions  of  going  to 
Europe  and  of  strengthening  the 
episcopacy,  nonconcurred  in,  330, 
331;  division  of  episcopal  duties 
between  Asbury  and  McKen- 
dree,  331 ;  Asbury  refused  the 
aid  of  presiding  elders  in  mak- 
ing appointments,  but  McKen- 
dree  sought  their  assistance,  and 
originated  the  "cabinet"  as  it 
still  exists,  332. 
Second  Conference,  1816 — vale- 
dictory address  of  Bishop  As- 
bury, deceased,  and  episcopal 
message  of  Bishop  McKendree, 
332;  other  standing  committees 
ordered,  333;  election  of  presid- 
ing elders  proposed,  discussed 
for  a  week,  and  disagreed  to, 
333,  334;  Enoch  George  and  Rob- 
ert Richford  Roberts  elected  and 
ordained  bishops,  334;  amend- 
ment of  disciplinary  section  on 
slavery,  334,  335  ;a  course  of  read- 
ing for  ministerial  candidates 
provided  for — the  first  of  such 
legislation,  335;  division  of  work 


among  the  three  bishops,  335, 
336;  Bishop  Asbury's  farewell 
address  to  his  colleague,  Bishop 
McKendree,  336,  337. 

Third  Conference,  1820 — Bishop 
McKendree's  address,  338;  the 
Missionary  Society  organized, 
338;  Joshua  Soule  elected  a  bish- 
op, but  declines  ordination,  be- 
cause of  a  change  in  the  law 
regulating  the  presiding  elder- 
ship— a  grave  constitutional  is- 
sue, and  a  critical  chapter  in  the 
life  of  Soule,  fully  set  forth,  338- 
351 ;  repeal  of  the  law  permitting 
the  Annual  Conferences  to  form 
their  own  regulations  as  to  traffic 
in  slaves,  351;  settlement  of  the 
Canada  question — joint  occupa- 
tion of  the  two  provinces  by 
British  and  American  Methodism 
decided  upon,  351-353;  adop- 
tion of  a  relief  measure  provid- 
ing a  constitutional  test  for  the 
acts  of  the  Conference — the  prin- 
ciple of  a  veto  power  to  be  exer- 
cised by  the  bishops,  353,  354; 
history  of  subsequent  action  of 
this  nature,  353-363- 

Quadrennium,  the,  1820-1824 — 
Bishop  McKendree's  address  on 
the  constitutionality  of  the  sus- 
pended resolutions,  relative  to 
the  election  of  presiding  elders, 
to  be  laid  before  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, 364;  cites  a  precedent 
for  his  course,  and  states  his  mo- 
tives and  intentions,  364,  365; 
fears  as  to  results  entertained 
by  Joshua  Soule — expresses  his 
views  to  McKendree,  365,  366; 
the  appeal  sent  to  the  Confer- 
ences—its leading  points,  366- 
368;  seven  of  the  twelve  Confer- 
ences (Southern)  judge  the  reso- 
lutions unconstitutional,  yet  au- 
thorize the  General  Conference 


Index. 


613 


to  adopt  them  without  altera- 
tion— the  other  five  Conferences 
(Northern)  refuse  to  act  on  the 
address,  and  prevent  the  adop- 
tion of  the  proposed  change  in  a 
constitutional  wav,  as  recom- 
mended by  McKendree,  368-371 ; 
the  Northeast  and  Southwest 
thus  early  arrayed  against  each 
other  on  a  question  purely  con- 
stitutional— the  contrasted  gov- 
ernments of  the  two  Episcopal 
Methodisms,  371-380;  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree's  great  infirmity  and 
trials  during  the  quadrennium, 
380. 

Fourth  Conference,  1824 — memo- 
rials denying  the  authority  of 
bishops  and  Conference,  381 ;  Pe- 
ter Cartwright's  resolution,  on 
the  suspended  measure  relative 
to  a  choice  of  presiding  elders, 
thrown  out  as  a  "feeler"  and 
withdrawn,  3S1 ;  David  Young's 
substitute,  declaring  that  the 
suspended  resolutions  "are  not 
of  authority,  and  shall  not  be 
carried  into  effect,"  is  adopted — 
a  notable  triumph  for  the  consti- 
tutional party,  383;  defeat  of  the 
measure  providing  for  an  episco- 
pal veto  power,  for  lack  of  a  con- 
stitutional majority  (consent  of 
all  the  Conferences),  384;  party 
lines  closely  drawn  (on  the  issue 
of  the  suspended  resolutions)  in 
the  election  of  bishops — ^Joshua 
Soule  and  Elijah  Hedding  elect- 
ed, each  party  securing  a  bishop, 
384,  3S5;  it  was  ordered  that  the 
resolutions  making  the  presiding 
elders  elective,  etc.,  not  become 
effective  until  the  next  General 
Conference,  385,  386;  a  plan  of 
annual  episcopal  visitation  rec- 
ommended— origin  of  the  "  Bish- 
ops'  Meeting,"  386,  387;  more' 


slavery  legislation — directions  to 
slave-owners,  and  privileges  of 
colored  preachers  and  members, 
387,  388;  a  turbulent  quadren- 
nium ensues — the  reformers  in 
convention,  but  their  radical  de- 
mands miscarry,  388,  389;  the 
first  official  meeting  of  the  bish- 
ops (1826) — resume  of  the  objects 
and  transactions  of  the  two  ses- 
sions, 389-396;  the  appointment 
of  William  Capers  as  fraternal 
delegate  to  England  rejected  be- 
cause he  was  a  slave-owner,  390- 
394;  continental  itinerary  of  the 
senior  bishop,  McKendree — his 
indefatigable  labors,  396,  397;  the 
work  of  division,  constitutional 
and  sectional,  continues  through- 
out the  quadrennium,  397-399. 

Fifth  Conference,  1828— the  first 
meeting  west  of  the  Alleghanies, 
399;  in  the  pastoral  address  the 
bishops  regret  their  failure  to 
appoint  a  delegate  to  England, 
and  suggest  that  the  Conference 
elect  such  a  representative,  when 
William  Capers  (rejected  by  the 
college  of  bishops  two  years  be- 
fore) was  chosen  over  Wilbur 
Fisk,  400;  the  presiding  elder 
controversy  finally  disposed  of 
by  rescinding  and  making  void 
the  "suspended  resolutions,"  400; 
first  formal  amendment  of  the 
Constitution,  by  the  process  fixed 
by  the  Constitution  itself,  ini- 
tiated— an  important  change  of 
the  sixth  restrictive  rule  pro- 
posed, 400-405 ;  peaceful  separa- 
tion of  the  Canada  Conference, 
and  its  erection  into  an  inde- 
pendent Church,  405-409. 

Sixth  Conference,  1832 — six  of  the 
future  bishops  among  the  mem- 
bers, 410;  amendments  fixing  the 
ratio  of  representation  at  one  in 


6i4 


Index. 


fourteen  (in  1836  one  in  twenty- 
one)  and  providing  for  fractional 
representation,  and  that  no  Con- 
ference shall  be  unrepresented, 
recommended — ^concurrence  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  ob- 
tained, 410;  the  bishops  relieved 
of  the  onerous  labor  of  traveling 
over  their  whole  jurisdictions 
during  the  recess  of  the  General 
Conference,  411;  James  Osgood 
Andrew  and  John  Emory  elected 
bishops, 41 1  ;Bishop  McKendree's 
affecting  farewell  to  the  Con- 
ference, 41 1,  412. 
Seventh  Conference,  1836 — all  the 
bishops  present,  412;  a  Judiciary 
Committee  appointed  for  the  first 
time,  412;  inquiry  ordered  into 
the  expediency  of  providing  a 
rule  for  the  reception  of  or- 
dained ministers  from  other 
Churches — the  bishops  to  have 
prepared  a  vindication  of  Epis- 
copal ordination,  412;  strong  and 
unqualified  declaration  against 
"modern  abolitionism  " — no  slav- 
ery legislation,  413;  Beverly 
Waugh,  Thomas  A.  Morris,  and 
Wilbur  Fisk  elected  bishops — 
the  latter  declined  ordination, 
413;  a  temperance  measure  re- 
ferred to  the  bishops  for  decision 
as  to  its  interference  with  an  ex- 
isting rule,  413;  a  glance  back- 
ward and  forward,  413,  414. 
Eighth  Conference,  1840,  proceed- 
ings of  the,  415-434. 
Ninth  Conference,  1844,  exalted 
character  of  the,  440;  proceed- 
ings on  the  vital  issues  of  slavery 
and  Church  division,  and  the 
final  results,  440-449. 
Delegates,  appointment  of,  by  elec- 
tion or  seniority,  158. 
Delamotte,  Charles,  47. 
Dempster,  James,  80, 82. 


Dickins,  John,  86,  113,  120,  124,  180, 
199.  245,  250. 

Differences  between  the  bishops  and 
the  Annual  Conferences  ruled  by 
radical  abolitionists,  settlement  of, 
by  the  General  Conference  (1840), 
423-427. 

Discipline,  Notes  on  the,  by  Coke 
and  Asbury,  204,  215,  216;  the  first, 
adopted  by  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, 208;  complete  revision  of,  in 
1787,  by  Asbury  and  Dickins,  239- 
241 ;  a  catalogue  of  all  the  editions 
of,  from  1785  to  1808,  with  descrip. 
tive  and  critical  remarks  thereon, 
463-476;  reprint  of  the  first,  and  the 
Large  Minutes  of  1780,  in  parallel 
columns,  532. 

Discord  and  Disunion  (1778-1780), 
94-120. 

Dixon,  Dr.  James,  approves  Wesley's 
episcopal  ordinations,  178. 

Doctrinal  sections  and  tracts,  a  com- 
plete list  of,  145,  146;  disappear 
from  the  Discipline,  147;  published 
in  a  separate  volume,  148. 

Doctrine  and  discipline  as  contained 
in  the  Minutes,  publication  of,  27, 
28. 

Doctrine,  standards  of,  first  recog- 
nized, 113;  enumerated,  113,  125, 
134,  136,  140-142. 

Doddridge,  Dr.  Philip,  126. 

Dorchester,  Daniel,  reversal  of  the 
decision  of  censure  in  the  case  of, 
429. 

Doub,  Peter,  436. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  effect  of  the 

measures  of,  422. 
Douglass,  Thomas  L.,  332,  356. 
Downes,  John,  19. 
Drake,  Benjamin  M.,  436,  437. 
Drew,  Samuel,   biographer  of  Dr. 

Coke,  36. 
Dromgoole,  Edward,  86,  89,  118. 
Duncan,  Dr.  James  A.,  458. 
Durbin,  Dr.  J.  P.,  442,  445. 


Index. 


615 


Early,  John,  secures  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  standing  committee  on 
slavery  (1840),  416;  in  the  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  436,  441  (note). 

Ecumenical  Methodism,  doctrinal 
standards  of,  139-148. 

Edwards,  John,  26. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  and  Whitefield, 

SI-  i 

Elders,  traveling,  the  body  of,  the 
fountain  of  authority  in  Episcopal 
Methodism,  324;  regulations  con- 
cerning, 2og,  210. 

Election  and  ordination  of  bishops: 
Thomas  Coke,  173;  Francis  As- 
bury,  161;  Richard  What  coat, 
290;  William  McKendree,  306,  308; 
Enoch  George,  Richard  R.  Rob- 
erts, 334;  Joshua  Soule,  first  and 
second  election,  384,  388;  Elijah 
Hedding,  385;  James  O.  Andrew, 
John  Emory,  411;  Beverly  Waugh, 
Thomas  A.  Morris,  413;  Wilbur 
Fisk,  declined  to  be  ordained,  413. 

Electoral  college,  plan  for  an  episco- 
pal, defeated,  295,  296. 

Elliott,  Charles,  448. 

Ellis,  Reuben,  68,  116,  124,  198,  245. 

Embury,  Philip,  plants  Methodism 
in  New  York,  51;  builds  John 
Street  chapel,  52;  question  as  to 
priority  of  his  work,  52. 

Emory,  Dr.  Robert,  on  history  of  the 
Discipline  (note),  65,  208. 

Emory,  John,  elected  bishop,  411. 

England,  concerning  the  perpetuity 
of  Methodism  in,  25-27. 

English  Methodism  (to  1784),  15-44. 

"  Episcopal,"  the  one  ground  of  the 
use  of  the  term,  206,  207. 

Episcopal  Methodism,  Weslej.  's  final 
settlement  of,  161-207. 

Episcopal  visitation  in  the  South,  the 
status  of,  after  the  Louisville  Con- 
vention, 453,  454. 

Evans,  James  E.,  439. 

Everett,  Joseph,  245,  250. 


Fasting,  days  for  general,  appointed, 
82,  84,  95. 

Few,  Ignatius  A.,  author  of  Dorches- 
ter and  Comfort  resolutions,  429- 
433- 

Filmore,  Glezen,  447. 

Fisk,  General  Clinton  B.,  458. 

Fisk,  Wilbur,  400,  401 ;  denounces 
modern  abolitionism  as  revolution- 
ary, 426;  elected  bishop,  but  de- 
clined ordination,  413. 

Fletcher,  John  William,  invited  to 
assist  and  succeed  Wesley,  29;  his 
grounds  for  declining,  31-33;  de- 
clines other  like  invitations,  33,  34; 
assists  in  determining  Wesley's 
American  policy,  116;  his  sugges- 
tions to  Wesley  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  Methodism — a  transcript  of 
his  original  letter,  as  obtained  and 
published  by  Bishop  Charles  B. 
Galloway,  477-481. 

Fowler,  Dr.  C.  H.,  458. 

Fowler,  Littleton,  436,  439. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  under  the 
preaching  of  Whitefield,  51 ;  at  the 
Constitutional  Convention  in  Phil- 
adelphia, 205. 

Fraternal  delegates,  names  of,  who 
acted  for  the  separated  Churches 
in  bringing  about  fraternity  and 
federation,  457,  458. 

Fraternal  relations,  effort  to  inaugu- 
rate, by  the  first  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Church,  South,  in 
1846 — ineffectual  at  the  time,  but 
happily  accomplished  in  1874-76, 
through  a  joint  commission,  457, 
458. 

Fraternity,  a  Declaration  and  Basis 
of,  as  adoptee"  by  the  Joint  Com- 
missions of  the  two  Methodisms, 
45S. 

Galloway,  Bishop  Charles  B.,  477. 
Garland,  Dr.  Landon  C,  458. 
Garrettson,  Freeborn,  84,  96,  97,  105, 


6i6 


Index. 


ii6,  ii8,  119,  125,  198;  letter  to 
McCaine  on  Church  government, 
etc.,  201 ;  nominated  by  Wesley  as 
superintendent  for  British  Ameri- 
ca, but  not  confirmed,  225,  226; 
a  member  of  the  Council,  245, 
250. 

Garrettson,  Richard,  97,  105. 
Gary,  G.,  432. 

Gatch,  Philip,  head  of  the  Committee 
of  Control  and  president  of  the 
seventh  "regular"  Conference, 
105;  author  of  an  important  rule  of 
administration,  105. 

General  Assistant  for  America,  the 
first,  Thomas  Rankin,  5S;  the  office 
of,  "put  in  commission,"  94;  As- 
bury  succeeds  to  the  office,  98;  his 
powers  ignored,  108;  recognized, 
110,  130. 

General  Conference  government  in 
American  Methodism,  the  begin- 
ning of,  499-522:  (i)  The  official 
prerogative  facts  as  contained  in 
the  Disciplines  from  1785  to  1792, 
501-504;  (2)  The  facts  of  history 
and  the  historical  argument,  504- 
511;  (3)  The  nature  of  the  Christ- 
mas Conference  as  an  organizing 
convention,  511-552. 

General  Conference,  Wesley's  failure 
to  provide  an  American,  190;  se- 
cured the  year  after  his  death,  sig- 
nalizing the  irrevocable  independ- 
ence of  American  Methodism, 
191-194;  Wesley's  desire  that  such 
a  Conference  be  held  in  1787 — his 
letter  to  Dr.  Coke,  225;  the  char- 
acter of  that  body — it  was  not  a 
General  Conference,  237-239;  the 
need  of  one  pressing  heavily  upon 
the  Church,  243;  Jesse  Lee  pro- 
poses and  Asbury  sanctions  a  plan 
to  supersede  the  Council,  251,  252; 
influence  of  Coke  and  O'Kelly  in 
promoting  the  scheme,  253;  meet- 
ing of  the  first  Quadrennial  Con- 


ference, 257;  first  Delegated  Con- 
ference, 327. 

General  Rules,  the  recognized  terms 
of  communion,  144. 

George,  Enoch,  elected  bishop,  334. 

Gill,  William,  97,  198. 

Glendenning,  William,  8a,  89,  91, 
134.  135- 

Government  by  committee,  as  sug- 
gested by  Asbury,  adopted  by  the 
fifth  Annual  Conference,  88,  89; 
Committee  of  Control  named,  with 
Walters  as  head,  89;  the  probable 
reasons  of  Asbury's  exclusion,  89- 
93;  the  committee  superseded  by  a 
presbytery  at  the  seventh  regular 
Conference— Philip  Gatch  and 
three  others,  107;  powers  and  pro- 
cedure in  administering  the  sacra- 
ments, 107. 

Grand  Climacteric  Year  (1784),  the, 
149-218;  Whitehead's  gloomy 
prophecies,  151;  but  for  the  meas- 
ures then  adopted,  Methodism 
would  long  since  have  been  ex- 
tinct, 153;  the  seeds  of  its  perpet- 
ual union  planted,  153. 

Green,  Greenberry,  124. 

Green,  Jesse,  439. 

Grimshaw,  William,  37. 

Gunn,  William,  439. 

Haggerty,  John,  198. 

Hammett,  William,  ordained  for  New- 
foundland, 176. 

Hamilton,  Jefferson,  436. 

Hamilton,  William  52. 

Hamline,  Leonidas  L.,  influence  of, 
in  the  epoch-making  Conference 
of  1844,  374,  375-379  (note),  441 
(note),  447,  44S. 

Hampson,  John,  Sr.,  158. 

Hanby,  Thomas,  ordained  for  Scot- 
land, 176. 

Harrel,  John,  436. 

Harris,  George  W.  D.,  436,  439. 

Harding,  Francis  A.,  suspended  from 


Index. 


617 


ministerial  functions  on  account  of 
his  connection  with  slavery,  440. 
Heck,  Barbara,  52. 

Hedding,  Elijah,  elected  bishop,  385; 
action  of,  in  Conferences  (1840-44), 
415.  417.  4-25.  426,  432,  443.  444.  445- 

Hodges,  John,  19. 

Hopper,  Christopher,  57. 

Hopkey,  Sophia  Christiana,  50. 

Hunt,  Dr.  A.  S.,  458. 

Huntingdon,  Countess  of,  51. 

Independknt  Episcopal  Church, 
Asbury's  proposed  organization  of 
an,  182;  not  intended  by  Wesley 
186-188. 

Ingham,  Benjamin,  47. 

Ivey,  Richard,  124,  198,  245. 

Janes,  Bishop  E.  S.,  435,  454. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  held  anti-slavery 
views,  223. 

Joint  Commissions,  on  fraternal  re- 
lations, on  a  common  catechism,  a 
common  hymnal,  and  a  common 
order  of  worship,  458,  459. 

Kavanaugh,  H.  H.,  439. 

Keighley,  Joshua,  ordained  to  min- 
ister in  Scotland,  176. 

Kelly,  Charles  H.,  477. 

King,  John,  the  first  to  preach  the 
gospel  according  to  Methodism  in 
Baltimore,  53. 

King,  Lord,  167,  16S,  175. 

Kobler,  John,  269. 

Large  Minutes,  early  editions  of 
the,  issued  by  Wesley,  27,  28,  65 
(note). 

Lee,  Jesse,  the  first  historian  of 
Methodism — quotations  from,  and 
accounts  of  his  activity  in  the  ear- 
ly councils  of  the  Church,  53,  69, 
95,  96,  108,  113,  122,  123,  127,  131, 
134.  137.  147.  224,  225,  228,  236,  238, 
240,  241,  244,  245,  251,  252,  257,  259, 
269,  270,  287,  290,  296,  300,  305,  524. 


Lee,  Leroy  M.,  87,  103,  129,  300,  319. 

Lee,  Richard  Henry,  desired  the  ab- 
olition of  slavery,  223. 

Lednum,  John,  89. 

Leigh,  Hezekiah  G.,  436. 

Liberty,  Christian,  the  principles  of, 
21. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  resolves  upon 
emancipation,  422. 

Little,  Dr.  Charles  J.,  197  (note). 

Littlejohn,  John,  86. 

Located  relation,  a,  must  be  granted 
to  members  of  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence in  good  standing,  433. 

London  Society,  organization  of  the 
(1739).  19;  membership  of,  more 
thai?  two  thousand  in  1744,  19. 

Longstreet,  Augustus  B.,  438. 

Louisville  Convention,  assembling 
of  the,  435;  adopts  resolution  to 
organize  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  435;  personnel  of 
the  Committee  on  Organization, 
436;  essential  conclusions  of  the 
session  reviewed,  435-440. 

Madison,  James,  favored  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery,  223. 

Manual  of  the  Discipline,  mistaken 
enumeration  of  standards  in,  140; 
some  corrections  made  in,  141. 

Mather,  Alexander,  ordained  to  the 
offices  of  deacon,  elder,  and  super- 
intendent, for  service  in  England, 
176,  177,  190. 

Maxfield,  Thomas,  19. 

McClaskey,  John,  399. 

McFerrin,  John  B.,  446;  his  resolu- 
tion for  a  mutual  and  friendly  di- 
vision of  the  Church,  adopted,  447. 

McKendree,  William,  the  first  Amer- 
ican bishop,  89;  his  connection 
with  the  O'Kelly  incident— Bishop 
Asbury  reclaims  him,  161,  162;  not 
favorable  to  the  Council,  250;  elect- 
ed and  ordained  bishop,  306,  308; 
the  first  to  presetit  an  episcopal  ad- 


6i8 


Index. 


dress — afterwards,  until  1828,  alone 
submits  written  messages  to  the 
Conferences,  417,  418;  his  last  Con- 
ference— a  touching  farewell,  411. 

McMahon,  William,  439. 

McTyeire,  Bishop  H.  N.,  statements 
and  opinions  of,  50,  79,  102,  140, 
141,  252,  309,  319,  343,  388,  389,  434, 
456- 

Merrill.  Bishop  S.  M.,  on  the  rights 
of  a  General  Conference  president, 
358-360. 

Merrill,  Joseph  A.,  401. 

Meriton,  John,  19. 

Merwin,  Samuel,  333. 

Methodist  polity,  the  two  constant 
factors  of,  15. 

Methodist  society,  the  first  in  Ameri- 
ca, 52. 

Methodist  union,  Wesley's  desire  foj", 
187-191. 

Miley,  Dr.  John,  163. 

Miller,  Robert  T.,  463,  466. 

Ministry,  an  ordained,  in  three  or- 
ders, for  both  American  and  Eng- 
lish Methodism,  189-191. 

Missionary  Society,  organization  of 
the  (1820),  338. 

Model  Deed,  Wesley's,  origin,  his- 
tory, and  provisions  of,  37,  38;  dis- 
satisfaction with  its  terms,  39;  the 
Birstal  chapel  trouble,  39,  40;  man- 
date of  Conference  and  its  execu- 
tion, 40,  41 ;  a  critical  inquiry  and 
its  results,  42-44 ;  its  provisions  mod- 
ified by  the  American  Conference 
of  1780,  113;  distinguished  from  the 
Deed  of  Declaration,  142,  note. 

Monroe,  Andrew,  436,  439. 

Moore,  Henry,  ordained  for  service 
in  England,  177. 

Moore,  William,  124. 

Morrell,  Thomas,  gives  account  of 
the  opposition  to  Wesley's  authori- 
ty and  the  omission  of  Wesley's 
name  from  the  Minutes  by  the 
Conference  (1787),  234. 


Morris,  Thomas  A.,  elected  bishop, 
313;  in  discussion,  415,  425,  436, 
444. 

Myers,  Lewis,  370,  371. 

Name  for  the  new  Church,  unani- 
mous adoption  of  the,  199,  200. 
Neeley,  Dr.  T.  B.,  29,  102. 
Nelson,  John,  38. 
Newton,  Dr.  Robert,  415. 

Oglethorpe,  General,  17,  47, 
O'Kelly,  James,  not  present  at  the 
Conference  of  1781,  and  did  not 
sign  the  first  question,  intended  to 
cement  the  union  of  the  preceding 
year,  125;  promised  Asbury  "to 
join  heartily  in  our  connection," 
128;  one  of  the  ten  original  elders, 
first  constituted  in  the  Church,  198; 
makes  serious  opposition  to  What- 
coat's  election  as  superintendent, 
233;  publicly  charges  Asbury  with 
displacing  Wesley,  234;  accuses 
him  of  excessive  sharpness  toward 
Coke,  239;  while  a  member  of  the 
Council,  engages  in  determined 
and  systematic  opposition  to  As- 
bury and  the  Council,  245,  248; 
calls  an  irregular  meeting  of 
preachers  of  his  district,  who  agree 
to  send  no  member  of  the  second 
session  of  the  Council,  250;  con- 
tributes, in  his  way,  toward  secur- 
ing a  General  Conference,  251;  in- 
troduces his  historic  measure  rad- 
ically modifying  the  appointing 
power  of  the  bishops — the  de- 
bate thereon,  258-260;  on  the  de- 
feat of  his  measure  he  at  once 
leaves  the  Conference  and  the 
Church — efforts  for  his  return 
were  unavailing,  260,  261 ;  his  aims 
and  conduct  summarized  by  As- 
bury, 262;  influence  of  his  case  on 
the  presiding  eldership  as  fixed  by 
the  Conference,  264. 


Index. 


619 


Olin,  Stephen,  439,  441  (note),  442. 

Ordinances  (see  Sacraments). 

Ordinations,  Wesley's,  for  America, 
167-175;  for  Scotland  and  England, 
176-180;  strictures  of  Charles  Wes- 
ley concerning,  162,  165,  173,  177; 
Wesley's  episcopal,  162-175,  192- 
194.  197-199 ;  to  deacon's  and  elder's 
orders,  by  Wesley's  superintend- 
ents, 192,  197-199. 

Organization  of  the  Church,  the, 
completed  by  the  creation  of  a 
delegated  body,  298. 

"Original plan,"  Wesley's,  reaffirmed, 
no. 

Ostrander,  Daniel,  309,  341. 
Otterbein,  William  Philip,  66,  161. 

Paink,  Robert,  357,  436,  438,  447, 
448. 

Pastoral  office,  origin  and  regulation 
of  the  several  grades  of,  211-213. 

Patton,  William,  436,  439. 

Pawson,  John,  169,  171;  ordained  to 
minister  in  Scotland,  176;  his  letter 
on  Church  government,  178. 

Peace  and  Prosperity  (1781-1784), 
122-138. 

Peace  of  America,  a  general  fast  for 
the  (1775).  82,  84. 

Peck,  Dr.  George,  431,  443. 

Peck,  Dr.  J.  T.,  448. 

Pedicord,  Caleb  B.,  86,  97. 

Peery,  Edward  T.,  436. 

People  called  Methodists,  the  Con- 
ference of  the,  153,  154,  155,  157. 

Pierce,  George  F.,  438. 

Pierce,  Dr.  Lovick,  354,  437,  438;  fra- 
ternal delegate  to  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  M.  E.  Church  in 
1848 — his  mission  unsuccessful,  and 
he  presents  an  ultimatum  from  the 
Church,  South,  as  to  future  over- 
tures, 457;  he  is  appointed,  with 
others,  as  fraternal  messenger  in 
1876,  when  a  declaration  and  basis 
of  fraternity  is  provided  for,  458. 


Piers,  Henrj',  19. 

Pilmoor,  Joseph,  the  missionary  com- 
panion of  Boardman,  51,52;  preach- 
es on  the  evening  of  his  arrival  in 
America,  53;  his  appointment,  53; 
chiefly  confines  him  to  the  cities, 
55;  not  appointed  to  work  by  the 
first  American  Conference,  he  re- 
turns to  England,  60;  a  Rev.  Dr.  in 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
157- 

Pitt,  the  younger,  164. 

Pitts,  Fountain  E.,  436,  439. 

Plan  of  Separation :  suggested  by  the 
formal  declaration  of  the  Southern 
and  Southwestern  Conferences, 
446;  a  select  committee  of  nine 
ordered  to  consider  the  momen- 
tous question,  446;  the  committee 
named,  under  the  McFerrin  reso- 
lution of  instructions,  "to  devise,  if 
possible,  a  constitutional  plan  for  a 
mutual  and  friendly  division  of  the 
Church,"  447;  futile  attempt  to 
amend  the  resolution,  447;  Jour- 
nal of  the  Conference  approved 
without  correction — error  of  Ham 
line's  biographer  on  this  point,  447, 
44S  (note);  the  Plan,  as  reported 
by  the  committee,  adopted,  448, 
449;  operation  of  the  Plan — the 
initiative  and  decision  with  the 
Southern  Conferences,  449-451; 
the  constitutional  validity  of  the 
Plan — affirmative  argument  of  Dr. 
Bascom,  and  action  of  the  bishops 
of  the  M.  E.  Church,  451-454;  re- 
pudiation of  the  Plan  by  the  re- 
actionary General  Conference  of 
1848 — the  vote  on  the  repudiating 
resolution,  454-456;  the  validity  of 
the  Plan  sustained  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States — text  of 
the  opinion,  454,  455  (note);  it  is 
the  strictly  legal  and  constitutional 
basis  of  the  Methodist  Church, 
South,  457;  fraternal  relations 


620 


Index. 


finally  established  on  the  basis  of 
the  Plan,  457,  458;  the  constitu- 
tional validity  of  the  Plan  further 
considered — views  of  Dr.  Warren 
and  others  examined,  492-498. 

Porter,  James,  447. 

Pojthress,  Francis,  84,  124,  250. 

Powers,  Wesley's,  who  shall  inherit, 
25-35- 

Prayer  Book,  Wesley's,  reprinted  by 
order  of  the  General  Conference, 
South,  in  1866,  and  its  use  made 
optional,  224. 
Presiding  elders,  the  origin  of  the 
office  of,  200;  a  more  formal  ac- 
count of,  213-216;  Jesse  Lee's  no- 
tice of,  222;  the  title  of,  occurs  in 
the  plan  of  the  Council  (1789)  for 
the  first  time  in  the  official  records 
of  the  Church — also  used  in  the 
Minutes  of  that  year,  but  not  again 
until  1797,  244;  the  office  and  title 
of,  appear  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Discipline  (1792),  562;  qualified  to 
preside  in  Annual  Conference  in 
absence  of  a  bishop,  293;  excepted 
from  the  two  years'  limit,  293;  elec- 
tion of,  defeated  in  the  Conference 
of  1816,  333,  334;  the  controversy 
finally  ended  (1828) — the  suspended 
resolutions  rescinded,  400. 
Probation,  ministerial,  the  legal  pe- 
riod of,  106,  126. 

Quadrennial  General  Confer- 
ences, from  1792  to  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Delegated  General 
Conference  (1808): 
Conference  of  1792 — no  official 
Minutes  extant,  but  the  full  trans- 
actions preserved  in  other  forms, 
257;  rules  of  order  adopted,  258; 
O'Kelly's  resolution  making  the 
appointing  power  of  the  bishops 
subject  to  appeal — a  strike  at  As- 
bury's  administration,  258;  the 
bishop,  much  chagrined,  with-  I 


draws  from  the  assembly,  leav- 
ing Coke  to  preside — sends  the 
Conference  a  reassuring  letter, 

258,  259;  a  protracted  debate  on 
the  O'Kelly  resolution — accounts 
of  Jesse  Lee  and  Thomas  Ware, 

259,  260;  the  measure  defeated, 
and  O'Kelly  abandons  the  Con- 
ference and  the  Church,  260,  261 ; 
he  is  accompanied  by  young  Mc- 
Kendree,  who  later  returns  to 
the  Connection,  261,  262;  Bishop 
Asbury's  impressions  of  O'Kelly, 

*  as  a  malcontent,  262;  extensive 
revision  of  the  Form  of  Disci- 
pline— the  office  and  title  of  pre- 
siding elder  appear  for  the  first 
time,  and  other  wise  provisions 
are  embodied,  262-265;  Coke's 
high  estimate  of  the  American 
itinerants,  365. 

Conference  of  1796 — address  of  the 
bishops  on  their  deliberations 
266;  boundaries  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  defined  for  the  first 
time,  266,  267;  the  Chartered 
Fund  established,  267;  revival  of 
the  slavery  question  after  the 
lapse  of  a  decade — elaborate  con- 
demnatory legislation  enacted, 
267,268 ;  rule  on  temperance  adopt- 
ed, 268;  earnest  and  extended  de- 
bate on  "strengthening  the  epis- 
copacy"— Coke  offers  to  place 
himself  entirely  at  the  disposal 
of  his  American  brethren,  but  is 
warmly  opposed  by  Jesse  Lee 
and  others,  268,  269;  Kobler's  ac- 
count of  the  discussion,  269,  270; 
Coke's  proposal  finally  agreed 
to — his  paper  to  the  Conference, 
and  his  cordial  reception  by 
Asbury,  270;  official  record  of 
Coke's  episcopate — his  frequent 
absences  from  America,  271,  272; 
supremacy  of  the  General  Con- 
ference in  the  government  of 


Index. 


621 


the  Church,  273-275;  review  of 
the  Conference  action  in  Bish- 
op Coke's  case,  275-284. 
Conference  of  iSoo — the  first  to  be 
held  in  the  spring,  2S5;  Asburj's 
brief  summary  of  proceedings, 
285;  reasons  for  changing  time 
of  session  from  October  to  Maj, 
286;  request  of  the  British  Con- 
ference for  Dr.  Coke's  return 
to  Europe  granted  after  warm 
debate,  on  condition  that  he  come 
back,  2S6,  2S7;  Bishop  Asbury's 
resignation  not  accepted — he  is 
continued  in  the  service  option- 
ally, 287,  288;  several  proposed 
modifications  of  the  appointing 
and  administrative  powers  of 
the  bishops  are  rejected,  2S8, 
289;  Richard  Whatcoat  elected 
bishop  over  Jesse  Lee,  290;  pas- 
sage of  Asbury's  law  requiring 
Conference  journals  to  be  kept 
and  inspected,  290;  adoption  of 
Jesse  Lee's  motion  that  no 
preacher  be  eligible  to  a  seat  in 
General  Conference  until  he  has 
traveled  four  years,  290;  the  bish- 
ops authorized  to  admit  colored 
preachers  to  local  deacon's  or- 
ders, 291 ;  an  address  to  the  So- 
cieties on  the  evils  of  slavery 
recommended,  and  two  other 
measures  on  the  subject  incor- 
porated in  the  Discipline,  291. 
Conference  of  1804 — Coke  pre- 
sides, Asbury  "talked  little, 
and  was  kept  in  peace,"  292 ; 
composition  of  the  assembly — 
Discipline  revised,  292;  the 
Twenty-third  Article  of  Reli- 
gion changed  to  its  present  form, 
292;  Annual  Conferences  to  be 
allowed  to  sit  a  week  at  least, 
and  to  appoint  places  of  their  ses- 
sions, 293;  an  elder  to  preside  in 
Annual  Conference  in  absence  of 


a  bishop,  293;  appointing  power 
of  the  bishops  limited — not  to  al- 
low preachers  to  remain  in  same 
station  more  than  two  years  suc- 
cessively, presiding  elders  ex- 
cepted, 293;  Coke's  return  to 
Europe  granted,  but  he  may  be 
recalled  by  three  Annual  Con- 
ferences, 293;  slavery  legislation 
modified — the  subject  ordered  to 
be  left  to  the  three  bishops,  but 
Asbury  declines  to  serve,  294;  an 
elaborate  statute  submitted — the 
Methodists  in  the  Carol  inas, 
Georgia,  and  Tennessee  exempt- 
ed from  the  operation  of  all  rules 
on  slavery,  294;  the  Discipline  di- 
vided into  two  parts,  spiritual 
and  temporal,  294;  Conference 
aftermath — plan  for  an  episcopal 
electoral  college  proposed  in 
1806  and  defeated  by  the  action 
of  the  Virginia  Conference — 
Jesse  Lee's  influence  in  the  case, 
295,  296. 

Conference  of  1808 — Asbury  alone 
presides,  but  five  future  bishops 
attend  as  members,  297;  domi- 
nance of  the  central  over  the 
border  Conferences  excites  de- 
mand for  a  Delegated  General 
Conference — the  measure  re- 
ferred to  this  Conference,  297, 
298;  the  memorial  presented — 
not  concurred  in  by  the  large 
central  bodies,  299-301 ;  an  able 
committee  of  fourteen  named  to 
formulate  a  constitution,  301 ;  the 
two  plans  of  Soule  and  Cooper 
considered  in  sub-committee — 
the  former,  with  its  famous  third 
restrictive  rule,  approved  b_v  both 
committees,  301-304  ;  the  report 
thereon  presented — debate  on 
Cooper's  side  motion  for  the  elec- 
tion  of  presiding  elders,  and  de- 
feat of  the  proposition,  304-308; 


622 


Index. 


McKendree  elected  and  ordained 
a  bishop,  306,  308;  the  report  on 
delegated  organization  rejected 
by  a  close  vote — an  alarming  cri- 
sis in  the  affairs  of  the  Church, 
309-311 ;  a  reconsideration  of  this 
adverse  action  is  had,  and  the 
original  delegated  plan,  with  no 
material  change,  is  finally  adopt- 
ed, 311-313;  full  digest  of  the 
measure  as  given  in  the  Disci- 
pline, 313,  314;  action  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  M.  E. 
Church  (1892)  on  determining  the 
Constitution  under  this  section  of 
the  Discipline,  314,  315;  Bishop 
Coke's  first  absence  from  Con- 
ference— his  marriage,  316;  his 
letters  to  the  Conference  on  his 
relations  to  American  Metho- 
dism and  explanatory  of  his  ne- 
gotiations with  Bishop  White  for 
union  with  the  Episcopal  Church, 
316-319;  the  whole  case  amicably 
ended,  his  name  being  retained 
on  the  M'nutes  and  he  subject 
to  recall  if  needed — his  rela- 
tions to  the  Amercian  Confer- 
ence summed  up,  320-322;  a 
dangerous  act  on  slavery,  that 
led  to  disruption  of  the  Church, 
322,  323;  the  term  "Delegated," 
its  source  and  meaning,  323,  324. 
Quarterly  Conference,  the  first,  in 
America  (1772),  56;  propositions 
considered  therein,  56,  57;  changes 
of  financial  jurisdiction,  74;  the 
supreme  authority  in  the  local 
church,  74;  duty  of  bishops  and 
elders  to  preside  in,  213,  214. 

Randolph,  John,  an  abolitionist, 
223. 

Rankin,  Thomas,  first  General  As- 
sistant for  America,  51,  57;  comes 
to  succeed  Asbury,  and  is  cordially 
received,  57;  specially  appointed  to 


rectify  the  American  administra- 
tion and  conform  it  to  the  English 
model,  58;  presides  over  the  first 
Conference,  59;  finds  discipline 
improperly  observed,  and  enters 
courageously  upon  needed  reforms, 
62,  63;  the  body  of  preachers  in  ac- 
cord with  his  plans,  64, 65  ;  his  super- 
vision and  authority  extended,  69; 
holds  the  second  Conference,  71; 
introduces  severe  but  wholesome 
discipline  as  to  exchange  of  town 
and  country  preachers,  72,  73;  his 
account  of  the  session,  75;  salutary 
effect  of  his  administrative  policy, 
in  the  estimation  of  Bangs  and 
Stevens,  76;  differences  between 
Asbury  and  himself,  76-79;  both 
appeal  to  Wesley,  who  brings 
about  a  reconciliation,  79-81;  pres- 
ident of  the  third  Conference,  82; 
notes  the  spirit  of  the  session,  83; 
holds  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth 
Conferences,  84-90;  he  is  super- 
seded by  a  governing  committee, 
88;  returns  to  Europe,  92;  charac- 
ter and  results  of  his  administration, 
92,  93;  his  portrait  graces  Stevens's 
History,  93;  ordained  for  service  in 
England,  177. 
Reformers  of  1824-1828 — their  revo- 
lutionary demands  unavailing,  388, 
389- 

Ryerson,  William,  conducts  the  ne- 
gotiation for  the  independence  of 
the  Canada  Conference,  405-409. 

Reid,  Nelson,  124,  198,  245,  250. 

Representation,  ratio  of,  fixed  at  one 
in  fourteen  (1832) — fractional,  pro- 
vided for — no  Conference  to  be 
without,  410;  ratio  of,  changed 
(1836)  to  one  in  twenty-one,  410. 

Restrictive  Rule,  the  First,  113,  139- 
141 ;  the  Sixth,  324;  amendment  of, 
400-405 ;  alteration  of,  by  action  of 
the  Southern  Conferences  alone, 
449,  450/  the  Third — the  constitu- 


Index. 


623 


tional  charter  of  the  episcopacy, 
485. 

Richards,  Thomas,  19. 

Rigg,  Dr.  James  H.,  477. 

Rival  Conferences  of  1779,  97-108;  of 
1780,  109-120. 

Roberts,  R.  R.,  elected  bishop,  334; 
his  presence  and  action  in  the  Con- 
ference of  1840,  415,  417,  430,  431. 

Rodda,  Martin,  82,  84,  86,  90. 

Rollins,  Isaac,  56. 

Roszel,  S.  G.,  430. 

Ruff,  Daniel,  89,  97. 

Sacraments,  administration  of  the, 
56,  57,  66-68;  81,  87,  99,  100,  loi, 
106-109,  116,  118,  120,  135,  127-130. 

Sargent,  Thomas  B.,  elected  travel- 
ing companion  to  Bishop  Soule, 
delegate  to  the  British  Conference, 
415;  member  of  Committee  on  Plan 
of  Separation,  447. 

Schism,  a  threatened,  in  1779 — a  con- 
servative North  versus  a  progress- 
ive South,  97-120;  the  danger  re- 
curs, in  the  controversy  over 
Coke's  power  as  a  representative 
of  Wesley,  but  the  points  in  dis- 
pute at  last  settled  amicably,  234, 
235;  the  O'Kelly  case,  258-260. 

Scott,  Levi,  432,  445. 

Scott,  Orange,  the  restless  slavery 
agitator,  415,  416. 

Seabury,  Samuel,  an  Anglican  bish- 
op for  Connecticut,  181. 

Shadford,  George,  57,  60,  72,  82,  83, 
84,  86,90,  91,  95,  104. 

Skelton,  Charles,  26. 

Slavery,  disciplinary  questions  and 
answers  concerning,  112;  legisla- 
tion against,  114;  advanced  ground 
maintained,  132;  further  regula- 
tions, 136;  Lee's  opinion  of  them, 
137;  the  new  term  of  communion 
providing  for  manumission,  216, 
217;  the  measure  repealed,  and  the 
subject  not  revived  for  ten  years. 


218;  rule  to  promote  the  spiritual 
welfare  of  the  slaves,  218;  a  peti- 
tion to  the  Virginia  Assembly  for 
negro  emancipation,  223;  some 
method  of  gradual  emancipation 
favored  by  many  statesmen  and 
people  of  the  South,  223;  action 
of  the  Constitutional  Convention 
(1787)  on  the  slave  trade,  223; 
Washington's  sentiments,  as  ex- 
pressed to  Coke  and  Asbury,  224 
(note);  a  general  rule  on  the  sub- 
ject first  appears  in  the  Discipline 
of  1789,  252;  the  issue  revived  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1796, 
after  ten  years — rigid  and  exten- 
s  i  v  e  anti-slavery  legislation  en- 
acted, 267,  268;  measures  adopted 
by  the  Conference  of  1800  on 
ownership  and  emancipation,  291 ; 
an  elaborate  statute  enacted  by 
General  Conference  of  1804 — more 
considerate  of  the  slaveholding 
South,  294;  passage  of  a  disruptive 
act  in  1808,  323;  milder  action  in 
1816  and  in  1820,  335,  351;  further 
directions  to  slave-owners,  and 
privileges  of  colored  preachers  and 
members  defined,  387,  388;  agita- 
tion of,  by  Orange  Scott,  415;  ap- 
pointment of  standing  committee 
on,  416;  the  subject  presented  in 
the  Bishops'  Address  (1840)  419- 
423;  suspension  of  Francis  A. 
Harding  from  ministerial  func- 
tions, 440;  the  case  of  Bishop  An- 
drew— his  virtual  suspension  from 
the  episcopate,  442-446;  declara- 
tion of  representatives  from  the 
slaveholding  states,  446. 

Smith,  George,  158. 

Smith,  Peyton  P.,  436. 

Smith,  W.  A.,  432,  437,  438,  439. 

Snethen,  Nicholas,  on  the  rejection 
of  Whatcoat,  233,  234;  replies  to 
O'Kelly,  248,  251,  252. 

Soule,  Joshua,  the  various  services 


624 


Index. 


of,  211;  his  observations  on  Wes- 
ley's system  of  discipline  in  Amer- 
ica, 211-213;  elected  bishop  (1820), 
but  declines  ordination  because 
of  an  unconstitutional  enactment 
making  presiding  elders  elective 
by  the  Conference — history  of  the 
case,  a  critical  chapter  in  his  life, 
309,  338-351;  elected  (1S24,  second 
time)  and  ordained  bishop,  384;  ap- 
pointed fraternal  delegate  to  the 
British  Conference  (1842),  415;  in- 
volved in  the  contest  with  aboli- 
tionists, 425,  426-  his  expository 
resolutions  on  the  admission  of 
the  testimony  of  colored  persons, 
433;  presides  at  the  Louisville 
Convention,  436. 

Southey,  Robert,  151. 

Standards  of  doctrine,  earliest  recog- 
nition of,  113. 

Stevens,  Abel,  quotations  from,  29, 
52,  55,  60  (note),  76,  103,  117,  206, 
215,  238,  243,  251. 

Stevenson,  Edward,  436. 

Stillingfleet,  Bishop,  168. 

Strawbridge,  Robert,  arrives  in 
America,  51;  forms  the  first  socie- 
ty in  Maryland,  52;  his  position  in- 
dependent and  influential — he  is 
excepted  from  the  operation  of  the 
sacramental  rule,  66,  67;  estimated 
by  Stevens,  67;  was  the  principal 
founderof  AmericanMethodism,70. 

Stringfield,  Thomas,  436,  439. 

Summerfield,  John,  358. 

Sunday  Service,  second  edition  of 
the,  224. 

Superintendents,  character  and  du- 
ties of,  98,  99,  108,  120,  13s,  175,  192- 
194,  196,  209,  210. 

Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
decision  of  the,  in  the  Church  di- 
vision case,  454,  455;  Justice  Mil- 
ler's decision  on  the  rights  of  reli- 
gious bodies,  494. 

Swoope,  Benedict,  494. 


Tatum,  Isham,  124. 

Taylor,  Joseph,  ordained  for  Scot- 
land, 176. 

Taylor,  Samuel,  19. 

Temperance,  disciplinary  rule  en- 
forcing, 112, 114,  132;  rule  on, adopt- 
ed by  the  second  General  Confer- 
ence,  268. 

Time  limit — fixed  at  two  years  for 
stationed  preachers,  293. 

Truslow,  John  F.,  436. 

Tunnell,  John,  86,  no,  198. 

Tyerman,  Luke,  quotations  from,  31, 
40,  50,  126,  157,  164,  166. 

United  Society,  the  rise  of  the 
(1739).  16. 

Vasey,  Thomas,  chosen  for  the 
American  work,  170,  171;  ordained 
presbyter,  and  assists  Wesley  in  the 
ordination  of  Coke,  172,  173;  ap- 
pointment as  elder  promulgated, 
175;  arrives  in  America,  180. 

Ware,  Thomas,  138,  199,  218,  227;  a 
member  of  the  first  Quadrennial 
General  Conference — his  rdsum^ 
of  the  arguments  on  the  O'Kelly 
measure,  260. 

Warren,  Dr.  W.  F.,  492. 

Warrener,  William,  ordained  for  An- 
tigua, 176. 

Washington,  George,  interviewed  at 
Mount  Vernon  by  Coke  and  As- 
bury,  and  declares  himself  in  favor 
of  negro  emancipation,  224;  hears 
and  replies  to  an  address  voted  by 
the  New  York  Conference  of  1789, 
in  recognition  of  the  new  Federal 
Constitution,  and  the  first  Presi- 
dent under  it— Asbury  reading  the 
address,  242. 

Watters,  William,  the  first  native 
American  itinerant  of  Methodism, 
61;  chief  of  the  committee  of  gov- 

^  ernment,  88,  89;  president  of  the 


Index. 


sixth  Conference  (1778),  94;  sus- 
tains the  Asburyan  Conference  of 
1779>  97.  98,99;  present  at  the  "  reg- 
ular" seventh  Conference,  but  not 
called  to  preside,  104,  105;  one  of 
the  three  commissioners  to  the 
eighth  (Virginia)  Conference,  ii6, 
118;  his  detailed  account  of  the 
embassy-,  119,  120;  as  the  peace- 
maker at  the  ninth  (union)  Confer- 
ence, 121;  his  comments  on  the 
formation  of  the  Church  (1784),  202. 
Waugh,  Beverly,  elected  bishop,  413; 
in  the  General  Conferences  of 
1840-1844,  41S,  425,  443,  444. 
Webb,  Captain  Thomas,  welcomes 
Wesley's  iirst  missionaries,  52;  re- 
garded by  Stevens  as  the  chief 
founder  of  American  Methodism,  | 
52;  at  the  British  Conference,  re-  j 
cruiting  for  America,  57 ;  not  able  ! 
to  take  work  at  the  first  American 
Conference,  61.  | 
Wells,  Joshua,  306.  J 
Wesley,  Charles,  19,  28,  47,  357;  ob- 
jects to  his  brother's  ordinations, 
162,  165,  173,  177,  190. 
Wesley,  John,  the  supreme  powers 
of,  16,  17  (note);  his  return  to  En- 
land  from  America,  17 ;  experiences 
conversion,  18;  his  genius  for  or- 
ganization and  government,  18;  his 
formal  separation  from  the  Mo- 
ravians, 19;  defends  his  use  of  su- 
preme power,  21-23;  plan  for  the 
perpetuity  of  Methodism,  28;  invi- 
tations to  John  Fletcher  declined, 
29-31,  33,  34;  failure  of  his  project 
for  a  personal  successor,  34,  35; 
residence  in  America,  47;  opinion 
of  Machiavelli,  48  ;  ideas  of  reli-  i 
gion,  and  of  dress,  48,  49;  conduct 
as  a  clergyman  while  in  Georgia, 
49;  expulsion  from  the  colony,  49; 
issues  the  first  Methodist  hymn 
book,  50  (note);  wild  speculations 
of  Tyerman,  50;  appoints  Thomas  I 
40 


Rankin  to  the  General  Superin- 
tendency,  57;  was  at  first  the  cen- 
ter of  union  in  America  and  En- 
gland, 58,  59;  writes  conciliatory 
letters  to  Asbury  and  Rankin,  79- 
81 ;  warns  preachers  as  to  the  pend- 
ing American  Revolution,  80;  his 
control  of  affairs  in  America  sus- 
pended during  the  war  period,  93; 
his  position  on  the  sacramental 
question,  100;  his  letter  directing 
Asbury  to  act  as  General  Assist- 
ant, with  recommendations  as  to 
doctrine  and  discipline,  reception 
of  preachers  from  Europe,  etc., 
134;  his  final  settlement  of  English 
Methodism,  149-218;  his  postmor- 
tem letter  on  the  misunderstand- 
ing as  to  the  Deed  of  Declaration, 
159;  his  own  defense  of  his  action, 
160;  his  final  settlement  of  Episco- 
pal Methodism,  161-207;  ordina- 
tion of  Coke  fiercely  assailed,  ridi- 
culed, and  misrepresented,  162-164; 
history  of  the  ordination,  167-175; 
his  views  concerning  the  episcopal 
form  of  Church  government,  168, 
169;  letters  from  Coke  on  episco- 
pal ordination,  169,  170;  he  does 
not  invite  Charles  Wesley  to  assist, 
173;  justifies  his  course  in  the  ordi- 
nations, 173;  his  "letters  of  episco- 
pal orders"  to  Coke,  174;  the  well- 
known  circular  letter,  174;  did  not 
intend  to  form  an  independent 
Church  in  America,  iS6-iS3;  his 
desire  for  Methodist  union  through- 
out the  world,  187-191;  asks  that  a 
General  Conference  be  held  in 
1787  at  Baltimore — nominates 
Whatcoat  for  superintendent  with 
Asbury,  and  Garrettson  for  the  mis- 
sion to  Nova  Scotia,  225;  is  disap- 
pointed in  this  desire,  226;  his  name 
left  off  the  American  Minutes  in 
1787,  but  restored  in  1789,  233,  234; 
his  design  of  removing  Asbury  to 


626 


Index. 


Europe,  234;  Lee  and  Coke  on  the 
restoration  of  his  name  to  the  Min- 
utes, 241,  242. 

Weslejan  Methodist  Church,  forma- 
tion of  tlie,  with  nonslaveholding 
as  a  condition  of  membership,  434. 

Whatcoat,  Richard,  selected  for  the 
worlcin  America,  170,  i7i;ordained 
presbyter,  and  assists  in  Colce's  or- 
dination, 172,  173;  appointment  as 
elder  announced,  175;  arrives  at 
New  York,  180;  nominated  by  Wes- 
ley for  superintendent  with  Asbury 
(17S7),  but  not  elected,  225, 226;  facts 
about  his  rejection  detailed  by  Jesse 
Lee  and  Nicholas  Snethen,  228,  233 ; 
elected  bishop,  defeating  Lee,  290. 

Whedon,  Dr.  D.  A.,  448. 

Whitefiekl,  George,  sails  from  En- 
gland on  the  eve  of  Wesley's  ar- 
rival there — makes  in  all  seven 
visits  to  America,  50;  his  remains 
still  rest  in  New  England  soil,  51; 
preached  his  last  sermon  the  day 
before  his  death,  51;  for  more  than 
thirty  years  a  "  flaming  evangel- 
ist " — the  fruits  of  his  labors  shared 
by  all  the  Churches  and  by  all  sec- 
tions of  America,  51. 


Whitehead,  Dr.  John,  quoted,  18,  28, 
29.  31-35.  37.  38.  151.  163,  171. 

Whitworth,  Abraham,  60. 

Wightman,  William  M.,  436. 

Williams,  Robert,  a  volunteer  en- 
dorsed by  Wesley — his  threefold 
distinction — the  spiritual  father  of 
Jesse  Lee,  53;  his  appointment 
at  the  first  American  Conference, 
61 ;  prints  and  sells  books,  inaugu- 
rating the  publishing  business  in 
America,  69. 

Willis,  Henry,  124,  198. 

Wilson,  Francis,  436. 

Wilson,  Nerval,  432. 

Winans,  William,  354,  426,  430,  436, 
441  (note),  447. 

Wright,  Richard,  a  fellow-missionary 
of  Asbury's,  53. 

Yearbry,  Joseph,  60,  83. 

Yearly  Conference,  the  first  (1744), 
19;  of  whom  composed,  19;  man- 
ner of  conducting  the  proceedings 
of,  20;  limited  powers  of,  21;  some 
of  the  doings  and  decisions  of,  24 
(note). 

Young,  David,  383. 


THE 


END. 


1  10^2 


i;,:Ji., ,  ,|t,..j| 'I, 


